LIBRARY 


mifS':^®^ 


ADDRESSED  TO 


TRINITARIANS  AND  CALVINISTS, 


-"OCCASIONED  BY 


DR.  WOODS'  LETTERS 


TO  UNITARIANS. 


BY  HENllY  WARE,  D.  D. 

Hollis  Professor  of  Divinity  iu  the  University  at  Cambridere. 


SKCOND  EDITION. 


CAMBRIDGE  : 

PUBLISHED  BY  HILLIARD  AND  METCAtF. 
Solil  also  by  Cummuigs  &  Hilliard,  IJoston. 

1820. 


DISTRICT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS,  TO  WIT  : 

District  Clerk's  Office. 

BE  it  remembered,  that  on  the  twenty-eighth  day  of  August.  A.  D.  1320,  and  in  the 
tbrty-fifth  year  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  Stiites  of  America,  Hiliiard  ¥i  Metealf 
of  the  said'ilistrict  have  deposited  in  this  office  the  title  of  a  book,  the  right  whereof  they 
claim  as  proprietors,  in  the  words  following,  viz. 

'•  Letters  addressed  to  1  rinitarians  and  Ca'vinists,  occasioned  by  Dr.  Woods'  Letters  to 
Unitaiiaiis.  By  Hem-y  Ware,  D.  D.  Mollis  Professor  of  Divinity  in  the  University  at  Cam- 
bridge." 

In  conformity  to  the  Act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  entitled,  "  An  Act  for  the 
encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  ma|)s,  charts,  and  books,  to  the  iithors 
and  piopric  tors  of  such  copies,  during  the  times  therein  mentioi:ed ;"  and  a'so  to  an  Ac* 
entitled,  "  An  Act  siiisp'.emintai^  to  an  Act,"  entitled,  "An  Act  tor  the  encouragement 


and  piopric  tors  of  such  copies,  during  the  tunes  therein  mentioi:ed ;"  and  a'so  to  an  Act, 
entitled,  "  An  Act  siiisp'.emintai^  to  an  Act,"  entitled,  "An  Act  tor  the  encouragement  of 
learning,  by  securing  tlie  copies  of  maps,  charts,  and  books,  to  the  authors  and  proprietoi-s  of 


■such  copies  durin"-  the  times  therein  mentioned  ;  and  extending  the  benefits  thereof  to   the 
arts  of  desiguiiig,  engraving  aud  etching  historical  and  other  prints." 

J,   W.  DAVIS. 
Qkrk  oft/ie  District  of  Massachiisettf. 


332.7 


CONTENTS, 


LETTER  I.  p.  4—9. 

Occasion  of  the  following  letters. — Controversy  useful. — Im- 
portance of  the  points  at  issue. 

LETTER  n.  9— ir. 

Propriety  of  a  creed. — Charges  of  misrepresentation  consider- 
ed, as  to  the  unity  of  God, — as  to  his  moral  perfection. 

LETTER  in.  17—53. 

Natural  character  of  man. — Doctrine  of  the  Orthodox  changed. 
— Imputation. — Total  depravity. — The  writer's  view  on  the 
subject. — Defence  of  it — from  observation  and  experience, 
— character  of  children, — scripture. — General  views  from 
scripture. — Particular  texts  from  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment considered. — Depravity  not  a  humbling  doctrine. 

LETTER  IV.  53—80. 

Election. — Alleged  misrepresentation  considered. — Westmin- 
ster Confession. — Dr.  Woods'  explanations, — inconsistent 
with  the  moral  character  of  God, — with  scripture, — General 
scope, — particular  texts  considered. — Reprobation. 

LETTER  V.  80—109. 

Atonement.—Alleged  misrepresentations. — Language  of  the  Or- 
thodox not  to  be  understood  literally. — Redemption. — Sac- 
rifice.— Atonement. — Two  natures  and  one  person  in  Christ. 
— Ground  of  forgiveness. — Value  of  good  works. — Salva- 
tion of  grace. 


*v 


LETTER  VI.  110—124. 


Divine  influence. — That  which  is  peculiar  to  Calvinism  to  be 
distinguished. — General  doctrine. — Indirect  influence  by 
instiuments  and  means. — Irresistible  grace. — Objections. — 
Unitarian  views. 


LETTER  VIL  125—150- 

Tendency  and  moral  influence  of  Unitarian  and  of  Trinitarian 
views, — generally, — as  respects  piety  to  God, — regard  for 
Jesus  Christ, — reverence  for  the  Scriptures, — benevolent 
exertions, — spread  of  the  Gospel. — Motives  to  activity. — 
Conclusion. 


LETTERS 


AUSRESSED 


TO  TRINITARIANS  AND  CALVINISTS. 


LETTER  I. 
-« 

CHRISTIAN  ERETHREN, 

1  HE  Letters  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Woods  to  Unita- 
rians,  which  have  now  been  for  some  time  before 
the  public,  suggest  to  me  the  propriety  of  address- 
ing the  few  following  pages  on  the  same  subjects,  to 
Trinitarians  and  Calvinists.  I  feel  the  greater 
readiness  to  do  it,  and  enter  upon  the  task  the  more 
cheerfully,  as  the  discussion  of  the  interesting  sub- 
jects, about  which  they  are  concerned,  seems  to  be 
taking  a  character  of  moderation,  temperance,  and 
urbanity,  which  promises  a  favourable  result.  It 
assures  us,  that  the  great  end,  which,  on  each  side, 
we  propose  to  ourselves,  will  not  be  lost  sight  of 
in  the  ardour  of  debate,  and  the  desire  to  maintain 
subordinate  opinions,  in  which  we  differ  from  each 
other  j  and  that  we  are  not  going  to  sacrifice  the 
spirit  of  religion  to  any  of  its  forms,  or  its  dogmas. 
I  am  far  from  thinking  religious  controversy  to 
be  universally  an  evil.  It  becomes  so,  only  when  it 
is  improperly  conducted.  It  is  bad,  and  produces 
bad  effects,  only  when  the  discussion  of  interesting 
questions  of  faith  or  duty  is  carried  on  with  an  in- 
temperate spirit,  or  with  sophistry  ;   and  when  the 


disputants^  ranged  on  each  side,  manifest  more  of  a 
spirit  of  party,  than  of  the  love  of  truth.  So  far 
indeed  is  the  public  discussion  of  those  questions, 
about  which  Christians  hold  different  opinions,  from 
being  a  thing,  that  should  be  discouraged  as  hiy't- 
ful ;  that  we  ought  rather  to  rejoice  in  it,  as  an 
evidence  of  a  prevailing  interest  in  the  subject  of 
religion  in  general,  as  a  symptom  of  religious  life  in 
the  community,  and  as  a  means  of  preserving  that 
life,  of  awakening  a  deeper  interest,  of  turning  the 
public  attention  still  more  to  the  subject,  and  thus 
furnishing  opportunities  for  impressing  upon  the 
minds  of  men  a  sense,  which  they  might  otherwise 
not  have,  of  its  high  value  and  importance.  These 
desirable  effects  it  may  produce  in  a  considerable 
degree,  however  imperfectly  and  defectively  the 
controversy  may  be  conducted,  and  although  great 
faults  of  manner,  and  even  of  temper,  may  mingle 
themselves  in  the  debate.  But  if  there  be  a  rea- 
sonable degree  of  exemption  from  bad  passions, 
party  views,  the  arts  of  controversy,  and  offensive 
personality  ;  the  effect  of  bringing  the  subject  into 
view,  in  the  various  lights  in  wliich  it  may  be  pre- 
sented, can  hardly  fail  to  be  highly  favourable  to  the 
cause  of  Christian  truth. 

The  book,  which  has  given  occasion  to  the  present 
pamphlet,  and  upon  which  some  remarks  will  be 
made  in  the  course  of  the  discussions  which  follow, 
is  entitled  to  more  than  common  attention  on  sev- 
eral accounts.  The  subjects  of  which  it  treats  are 
in  themselves  highly  important ;  and  being  those, 
about  which  the  Christian  community  is  at  the  pres- 


ent  time  much  divided,  they  have  excited  a  pecu- 
liar interest  of  late  by  being  brought  more  frequently 
than  common  before  the  public  mind.  It  comes 
from  a  gentleman  of  acknowledged  talents  and 
learning,  and  of  high  standing  among  his  brethren 
as  a  scholar  and  a  theologian.  It  professes  to 
speak  with  authority,  as  it  speaks  in  the  name  of 
that  part  of  the  Christian  community,  for  whom  it 
claims  the  very  honourable  distinction  of  "  the 
Orthodox  of  New  England,''  and  is  designed  to 
explain  and  defend  the  opinions,  by  which  they  are 
distinguished,  for  the  purpose  of  guarding  them 
against  misapprehension,  and  in  order  to  do  away 
the  effects  of  misrepresentation. 

The  writer  of  the  following  sheets  hopes  to  per- 
form the  duty  he  has  assigned  himself,  whatever 
may  be  its  defects  in  other  respects,  in  a  spirit, 
which  shall  not  be  liable  to  exception.  It  is  his 
design  to  make  such  remarks,  as  occur  to  him,  on 
the  opinions  and  reasonings  of  the  pamphlet  before 
him,  and  to  give  a  free  exposition  of  his  own  views 
upon  the  several  subjects  treated  of  by  Dr.  Woods^ 
together  with  the  reasoning,  by  which  he  has  been 
led  into  those  views.  But  he  wishes  it  to  be  un- 
derstood, that  they  are  his  own  views  only.  He  is 
not  authorized,  nor  does  he  profess,  to  speak  in  the 
name  of  any  party  or  body  of  Christians.  How 
far  his  opinions  on  the  subjects  in  controversy,  and 
his  manner  of  explaining  and  defending  them,  may 
agree  with  those  of  his  friends,  he  knows  not.  He 
is  willing  to  avail  himself  of  this  opportunity  of  ap- 
pearing before  the  public  on  these  subjects,  belie v- 


8 

ing  that  the  cause  of  Christian  truth  cannot  fail  of 
being  promoted  by  unreserved  freedom  in  the 
discussion  of  controverted  doctrines  ;  and  by  indi- 
viduals communicating  the  result  of  their  study  and 
thought,  without  any  reference  to  the  opinions  of 
the  party  or  sect,  to  which  they  may  be  considered 
in  general  as  belonging. 

With  respect  to  the  points  at  issue  between  those, 
who  are  called  Unitarians  on  the  one  hand,  and 
Trinitarians  and  Calvinists  on  the  other,  it  is  of 
some  importance  that  you  should  know  in  what 
light  they  are  viewed,  and  what  degree  of  impor- 
tance is  attached  to  them  by  Unitarians.  Upon 
this  subject,  there  is  probably  with  us,  as  with  you, 
some  diversity  of  opinion  ;  though  I  am  persuaded 
that  no  intelligent  Unitarian  can  think  them  unim- 
portant, and  practically  a  matter  of  indifference. 
It  cannot  be  imagined,  that  the  constitution  of 
things  is  such,  as  to  render  truth  and  error  on  any 
subject  perfectly  indifferent,  and  equally  salutary. 
And  it  is  believed,  as  I  shall  have  occasion  to  show 
in  the  sequel,  that  the  doctrines  for  which  we  con- 
tend, and  which  are  the  subject  of  controversy 
between  us,  are  calculated,  as  far  as  their  effects 
are  not  prevented,  nor  counteracted  by  other  causes, 
to  have  a  better  moral  influence  in  forming  the 
character,  than  the  opposite  doctrines ;  and  that 
their  reception  and  prevalence  cannot  fail  to  have 
great  influence  on  the  reception  and  spread  of 
Christianity  in  the  world.  At  the  same  time,  it  is 
not  maintained,  that  any  one  of  the  doctrines,  about 
which  we  differ,  is  fundamental  in  such  a  sense, 


that  tlie  opposite  is  incompatible  with  the  Christian 
character,  and  forfeits  the  Cliristian  name  for  him 
who  maintains  it.  It  is  not  doubted,  that  all  the 
best  influences  of  Christian  faith  may  be  felt,  and 
the  Christian  life  acted  out,  and  the  consolations 
and  hopes  of  the  Gospel  enjoyed  by  those,  whose 
speculative  opinions,  upon  each  of  the  several  points 
of  controversy,  which  lie  between  us,  are  in  opposi- 
tion to  each  other. 


LETTER  II. 

I  SHALL  confine  myself  to  a  few  passing  remarks 
on  what  is  contained  in  some  of  the  first  letters  of 
Dr.  Woods,  wishing  to  draw  your  attention  chiefly 
to  the  important  articles  of  doctrine,  which  are 
discussed  in  the  remaining  ones ;  since,  with  the 
exception  of  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  Unity,  they 
involve  the  most  interesting  questions,  that  lie  be- 
tween us  and  you. 

With  respect  to  what  is  implied  in  no  equivocal 
manner  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  letter,  I  would 
only  observe,   that  as  to  the  propriety  of  having  a 
creed,   no   doubt,  I  believe,  has  ever  been  enter- ^ 
tained.     Unitarians  have  always  claimed  the  right     ^ 
of  every  individual  to  have  his  ow^n  particular  creed.    \|/ 
What  they  have  sometimes  had   occasion  to  object 
to  is,  not  that  each  of  the  several  sects  and  denom- 
inations of  Christians  should  have  its  own  creed, 
nor,  that  any  individual  should  have  one  ;  but  that 


10 

any,  whether  an  individual  or  a  body  ^f  Cliristians, 
should  insist  upon  their  creed  being  the  creed  of 
others ;  either  as  a  title  to  the  Christian  name,  or 
as  a  condition  of  their  being  admitted  to  the  parti- 
cipation of  any  Christian  privileges. 

In  the  concluding  part  of  the  same  letter,  and  in 
the  two  following.  Dr.  Woods  proceeds  to  charge 
Mr.  C banning  with  a  gross  misrepresentation  of 
the  opinions  of  the  Orthodox  upon  two  points,  the 
Unity  of  God,  and  his  moral  perfection ;  and  of 
injustice  in  claiming  these  as  distinguishing  articles 
of  the  Unitarian  Faith.  Now,  in  respect  to  the 
first  of  these,  the  Unity  of  God,  it  is  to  be  recol- 
lected, that  the  question  is  not,  whether  the  Unity 
of  God  be  asserted  by  Trinitarians.  This  is  not 
denied  them  ;  but  the  true  question  is,  whether 
opinions  are  or  are  not  held  by  them  in  relation  to 
this  subject,  which  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the 
divine  Unity.  It  is  with  this,  and  not  with  the 
other,  that  they  are  charged  by  Unitarians.  Full 
credit  is  given  to  their  word,  when  they  declare 
their  belief  in  the  Unity  of  God,  and  when  they  tell 
us  ^*  it  is  asserted  in  all  their  systems  of  Divinity, 
and  all  their  Confessions  of  Faith."  Nor  is  there 
any  thing  that  I  can  perceive  in  Mr.  Channing's 
Sermon,  that  contradicts  this.  But  until  more 
than  this  is  done,  and  until  something  more  satis- 
factory, than  has  yet  been  said,  can  be  alleged  by 
them  to  show,  that  the  commonly  received  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  reconcileable  with  the  proper  Unity 
of  God,  we  must  be  allowed  to  consider  the  charge 
as  still   lying  in  its   full  force.      Of  this   the  most 


n 

respectable  Trinitarian  writers  seem  not  to  be 
insensible.  How  much  they  are  pressed  with  this 
difficulty,  and  how  impossible  they  find  it  to  extri- 
cate themselves  from  it,  appears  in  the  variety  of 
explanations  which  have  been  successively  resorted 
to,  and  the  dissatisfaction  expressed  with  every 
attempt  that  has  been  made  for  the  purpose.  The 
last  expedient,  indeed,  that  of  rejecting  the  use  of 
the  phrase  "three  persons,"  as  applied  to  the 
Deity,  and  substituting  for  it  that  of  "three  dis- 
tinctions,'" if  by  distinctions  be  meant  any  thing 
short  of  separate  persons  or  agents,  may  be  consid- 
ered as  restoring  the  divine  Unity.  But  it  reduces 
the  Trinity  to  a  mere  unmeaning  name,  and  were 
it  not  an  abuse  of  language  of  mischievous  tendency, 
would  leave  nothing  on  the  subject,  that  need  be 
thought  worth  contending  about. 

Professor  Stuart  (p.  23)  expresses  regret  that 
the  term  person  had  ever  come  into  the  symbols  of 
the  churches,  sensible,  as  it  appears,  that  it  cannot 
be  used  in  any  intelligible  meaning,  without  infring- 
ing on  the  Unity,  and  running  into  palpable  Trithe- 
ism  ;  and  the  late  President  Dwight,  though  he 
contends  for  the  propriety  of  the  term,  (vol.  ii, 
p.  137,)  as  a  convenient  one  for  expressing  the 
things  intended  by  the  doetrine,  yet  confesses,  that 
if  he  is  asked  what  it  means,  he  must  answer,  I 
know  not.  But  Vk^hat  is  the  particular  convenience 
of  the  use  of  a  term,  which  expresses  no  meaning, 
not  even  in  the  mind  of  him  that  uses  it,  we  are  left 
to  conjecture. 


12 

Upon  the  otlier  charge,  which  relates  to  the 
moral  perfections  of  God,  the  course  which  Dro 
Woods  has  pursued  seems  to  me  liable  to  objection. 
In  his  fourth  Letter,  in  stating  what  was  necessary 
on  his  part,  and  the  mode  of  reasoning  proper  to  be 
pursued,  in  order  to  relieve  the  system  he  has  un- 
dertaken to  defend,  from  the  charge  of  inconsistency 
with  the  moral  perfections  of  God,  he  says,  "we  have  I 
nothing  to  do  with  the  inquiry,  whether  the  common  « 
doctrine  of  depravity  can  consist  with  the  moral  \ 
perfection  of  God,  nor  with  any  difficulty  whatever  -^ 
in  the  attempt  to  reconcile  them."  This  is  cer- 
tainly a  very  extraordinary  thought,  that  in  de- 
fending his  system  against  an  objection  to  which  it 
is  thought  liable,  he  should  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  very  objection  itself,  nor  with  the  difficulty 
it  involves.  Did  the  question  relate  to  the  simple 
fact,  whether  the  doctrine  of  depravity,  as  main- 
tained by  the  Orthodox,  were  a  doctrine  of  scripture 
or  not,  its  consistency  or  inconsistency  wdth  the 
moral  perfections  of  God  would  indeed  make  no 
part  of  the  ground,  on  w^hich  the  argument  should 
proceed.  But  the  question  he  had  to  consider  was 
a  different  one  from  this.  The  doctrine  of  deprav- 
ity, together  with  the  associated  doctrines,  has  a 
place  in  the  system  of  Orthodox  faith.  It  is  upon 
the  ground  of  these  doctrines,  as  Dr.  Woods  ex- 
pressly admits,  (p.  25,)  that  Mr.  Channing  has 
used  the  language,  wiiich  he  understands  as  imply- 
ing the  charge  under  consideration,  viz.  ^'that  the 
Orthodox  deny  the  moral  perfection  of  God."  ^  Now 
it  certainly  does  belong  to  him,  who  w^ould  relieve 


the  system  from  that  imputation,  to  show,  not  only 
nOiat  the  doctrine  of  depravity,  but  that  all  the  dthcr 
doctrines  connected  with  it  in  the  Calvinistic  sys- 
tem, are  consistent  w^ith  the  moral  perfection  of 
God.  This  is  the  very  point  at  issue,  and  the  only 
point,  so  far  as  relates  to  this  charge,  with  which 
.  he  had  any  concern  ;  and  all  that  he  hfs  said  to 
show,  that  he  maintains  many  views  respect* i..^  the 
divine  government  and  purposes  in  common  with 
Unitarians,  and  which  are  consistent  with  the  moral 
perfections  of  God,  vt^ill  do  nothing  toward  proving 
that  he  does  not  maintain  other  opinions,  which  are 
not  reconcileable  with  it.  He  was  required,  there- 
fore, in  undertaking  to  repel  this  charge,  not  only 
to  prove,  which  I  shall  afterward  show  he  has  not 
done,  that  the  scheme  of  doctrine,  which  he  defends, 
is  taught  in  the  scriptures,  but  also  to  prove  that  it  is 
in  itself  consistent  with  the  moral  perfection  ot  God. 
But  this  he  has  not  attempted  to  do.  He  has,  on 
the  contrary,  said  that,  which  implies,  that  what- 
ever the  fact  may  be,  the  consistency  demanded 
cannot  be  seen  to  exist.  Now  if  he,  who  believes 
the  doctrines  in  question  to  be  taught  in  the  scrip- 
tures, is  yet  unable  to  perceive  how  they  are 
reconcileable  with  the  moral  perfection  of  God ; 
ought  he  to  be  greatly  surprised,  or  much  disturbed, 
that  another,  who  cannot  find  them  taught  in  the 
bible,  and  who  sees  them  therefore  only  as  human 
opinions,  without  autliority,  should  represent  them 
as  irreconcileable  with  that  moral  perfection,  vs^hich 
he  does  find  there  clearly  and  constantly  taught  ? 


14 

There  is  another  consideration  also,  not  to  he 
overlooked,  to  show  that  he  had  something  to  do 
with  this  inquiry.  If  the  doctrine  of  depravity,  as 
it  is  maintained  by  the  Orthodox,  cannot  be  per- 
ceived by  us  to  be  consistent  with  the  moral  perfec- 
tion of  God,  the  presumption  is  very  strong,  that  it 
is  not  true  ;  since,  if  it  actually  be  inconsistent,  it 
certainly  cannot  be  true.  In  proportion  then  to  the 
difficulty  of  reconciling  it,  the  proof  of  it  from  scrip- 
ture anc'  our  experience  ouglit  to  be  clear,  and  not 
liable  to  objection.  The  neglect,  therefore,  to  re- 
move this  fundamental  objection  to  the  whole  sys- 
tem, you  perceive,  must  have  its  influence  upon  all 
the  reasoning  employed  in  the  direct  proof  of  its 
several  parts.  Nothing  but  the  most  clear  and  sat- 
isfactory proof  will  be  sufficient  for  the  support  of  a 
doctrine,  which  labours  under  the  weight  of  so  much 
intrinsic  incredibility,  confessedly  incapable  of  being 
removed. 

I  have  one  other  remark  to  make  in  this  place. 
Dr.  Woods  has  stated  correctly,  (p.  26)  "  That  in- 
dependently of  revelation,  and  well  known  facts,  we 
are  incapable  of  judging,  what  the  goodness  of  God 
will  require,  as  to  the  condition  of  man ;  or  what 
man's  character  and  state  must  be  under  the  gov- 
ernment of  a  being  infinitely  wise  and  benevolent." 
But  the  inference  he  would  draw  from  this,  I  think 
you  will  perceive,  is  not  warranted  by  tlie  premi- 
ses. For  although  it  be  conceded,  that  from  tlie 
limitation  of  our  faculties,  we  are  incapable  of  say- 
ing what  the  goodness  or  justice  of  God  would  in- 
quire :  we  have  faculties  capable  of  deciding  witli 


15 

certainty,  what  they  will  not  admit.  We  can  pro- 
nounce without  hesitation  with  respect  to  some 
things,  that  they  are  absolutely  irreconcileable  with 
those  attributes.  To  say  that  we  have  not  faculties 
for  this,  is  to  say,  not  that  our  knowledge  is  limited 
and  imperfect,  but  that  it  is  actually  nothing. 
There  may  be  a  thousand  cases,  like  those  stated 
by  Dr.  Woods,  which,  previous  to  experience,  we 
could  not  have  foreseen,  nor  should  have  expected, 
which  when  first  proposed  present  difficulties,  but 
which  are  yet  capable  of  being  accounted  for  in  a 
satisfactory  manner,  and  reconciled  with  that  justice 
and  goodness,  with  which  they  seem  at  first  to  be 
at  variance.  But  other  cases,  it  is  evident,  may 
be  supposed,  which  would  admit  of  no  such  expla- 
nation. And  what  I  contend  is,  that  the  orthodox 
doctrine,  as  to  the  natural  "  character  of  man,  and 
the  manner  in  which  God  designates  the  heirs  of 
salvation,"  (p.  25)  is  of  this  kind  ;  and  that  Dr. 
Woods'  assertion,  (p.  27)  "that  the  facts  he  has 
there  stated,  and  which  are  known  to  all,  are  as  far 
from  being  agreable  to  what  we  should  naturally 
imagine  the  infinite  goodness  of  God  would  dictate^ 
as  the  fact  that  men  are  subjects  of  moral  deprav- 
ity," cannot  be  supported.  There  is  no  such 
analogy  between  the  cases,  as  to  warrant  the 
conclusion.  For  we  can  see,  with  respect  to  the 
former,  how  they  may  be  consistent  with  the  moral 
perfections  of  God  ;  but  we  can  make  no  supposi- 
tion, upon  which  we  shall  be  able  to  perceive,  that 
the  latter  can  be  so.  The  reason  is,  that,  with 
respect  to  all  the  former  cases,  such  as  the  promis- 


16 

cuous  suffering  and  ruin  brought  upon  men  by 
plaguesj  hurricanes,  and  earthquakes, — the  cruelties 
and  horrors  of  the  slave-trade, — and  the  darkness 
and  ignorance  to  which  so  large  a  portion  of  the 
human  race  are  by  the  inevitable  circumstances  of 
their  condition  subjected, — the  evil  is  not  final  and 
remediless,  but  is  partial  or  temporary,  and  may  be 
considered  as  inflicted  for  the  purpose  of  discipline ; 
and  the  single  consideration,  that  it  makes  a  part 
of  human  probation,  and  that  the  subject  of  it  may 
yet,  by  the  manner  in  which  he  conducts  under  it, 
be  an  infinite  gainer  in  the  whole  of  his  existence, 
relieves  it  from  all  objection  arising  from  any  sup- 
posed inconsistency  with  the  justice  or  goodness  of 
God.  But  the  doctrine  of  the  native  depravity  of 
man,  taken  in  its  connexion  with  the  whole  scheme 
of  which  it  is  a  part ;  personal  unconditional 
election,  a  complete  atonement  made  for  those,  who 
are  thus  ordained  to  eternal  life,  and  their  regen- 
eration by  a  special  irresistible  influence  of  the 
spirit  of  God ;  and  what  is  the  necessary  and 
infallible  consequence  of  all  this,  the  equal  uncondi- 
tional reprobation  and  final  and  everlasting  ruin  of 
all  the  rest  of  the  human  race,  certainly  admits  of 
no  such  reconciliation  with  any  notion  we  can  have 
of  the  moral  perfection  of  the  Author  of  our  being. 
As  Dr.  Woods,  however,  makes  no  attempt  to 
show  how  they  arc  capable  of  being  reconciled  ;  as 
he  has  virtually  admitted  that  they  are  incapable 
of  being  perceived  by  us  to  be  consistent  with  each 
other;  and  has  contented  himself  with  endeavouring 
to  prove  the  several  doctrines  as  matters  of  fact, 


17 

upon  the  principle,  that  if  he  can  clearly  prove 
them  to  be  doctrines  of  scripture,  he  is  not  bound 
to  show  how  they  can  be  consistent  with  the  divine 
perfections,  it  is  unnecessary  to  say  any  thing  more 
to  show,  that  the  imputation  of  which  he  complains 
is  not  removed.  I  shall  therefore  proceed  directly 
to  the  consideration  of  the  evidence  upon  which 
the  several  doctrines  in  question  rest  as  matters  of 
fact. 


LETTER  III. 

The  discussion  introduced  by  Dr.  Woods  in  his 
fourth  Letter,  and  pursued  through  the  fifth  and 
sixth,  relates  to  "the  natural  character  of  man." 
As  the  question,  "what  is  the  natural  character  of 
man,"  lies  at  the  very  foundation  of  the  controversy 
between  Unitarians  on  the  one  hand,  and  Trinita- 
rians and  Calvinists  on  tlie  other,  it  will  prepare 
us  for  a  fair  discussion  of  it,  to  examine  in  the  first 
place  what  is  the  precise  difference  of  opinion 
between  them  on  the  subject. 

Heretofore,  those  who  claimed  the  title  of  Ortho- 
dox, and  professed  to  follow  the  doctrine  of  Calvin, 
were  satisfied  with  the  language  used  by  the 
Westminster  Divines  in  the  Catechism  and  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  in  which  the  doctrines  of  that  reformer 
are  expressed  with  remarkable  precision  and 
distinctness.     In  them  the  doctrine,  which  respects 


18 

the  natural  state  of  man  since  the  fall,  and  in  conse- 
quence of  that  event,  has  two  parts.  They  repre- 
sent the  first  sin  of  our  first  parent,  as  imputed  to 
all  his  posterity,  who  are  said  to  have  simied  in  himy 
and  to  have  fallen  xvith  him  ;  and  they  teach  the 
entire  corruption  of  man's  nature,  that  he  is  utterly 
indisposed^  disabled^  and  made  opposite  to  all  that  is 
spiritually  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil, — 
under  the  displeasure  and  curse  of  God,  and  liable  to 
all  punishments  in  this  world  and  that  which  is  to 
come. 

It  seems  that  the  first  part  of  this  account, 
though  it  was  formerly  reckoned  one  of  the  principal 
tests  of  Orthodoxy,  more  zealously  maintained  than 
any  other,  is  now  given  up.  It  is  wholly  omitted 
in  the  Creed  adopted  by  the  Theological  Institution 
in  Andover.  It  is  expressly  given  up  by  Dr. 
Woods.  "•The  Orthodox  in  New  England  at  the 
present  day,^^  he  tells  us,  p.  44,  "  are  not  charge- 
able with  the  erroneous  opinions  held  by  their 
predecessors.  The  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to 
his  posterity,  in  any  sense,  which  those  words 
naturally  and  properly  convey,  is  a  doctrine  which 
w^e  do  not  believe."  This  change  in  the  opinions 
of  the  Orthodox,  and  advance  toward  what  we 
believe  to  be  right  views,  we  are  glad  to  witness  ; 
and  have  no  doubt  that  the  same  correct  mode  of 
thinking  and  reasoning,  which  has  led  to  it,  wdll 
lead  also  to  the  rejection  of  the  other  part  of  the 
doctrine,  which  has  heretofore  been  considered  as 
inseparably  connected  with  it.  We  think  that 
further  reflection  will  convince  them,  that  they  are 


I 

19 

inseparably  connected — that  if  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  guilt  is  a  solecism,  and  inconsistent  with 
the  moral  character  of  God,  it  is  equally  so,  that, 
in  consequence  of  it,  all  his  posterity  should  come 
into  being  with  a  nature  so  totally  corrupt  and  in- 
clined to  sin,  as  to  be  incapable  of  any  good. 

I  could  have  wished  that  Dr.  Woods  had  given 
a  more  distinct  and  compact  definition  of  the  doc- 
trine he  meant  to  defend  on  this  point,  that  there 
might  be  no  mistake  of  the  question  between  us. 
From  scattered  expressions,  however,  and  from  his 
having  made  no  exception  with  respect  to  this  part 
of  the  doctrine,  I  think  we  are  to  conclude,  though 
he  chooses  to  express  it  in  somewhat  softened  and 
qualified  language,  that  he  holds  it  in  its  full  extent. 
By  such  expressions  as  the  following,  (p.  31)  "by 
nature  men  are  subjects  of  an  innate  moral  depravi- 
ty ;" "while  unrenewed,   their  moral  affections 

and  actions  are  wholly  wrong."  (p.  43)  "  All, 
without  exception  by  nature,  or  in  consequence  of 
their  natural  birth,  are  in  such  a  state  of  moral 
impurity,  as  disqualifies  them  for  the  enjoyments  of 
heaven,  unless  they  are  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 
And  (p.  46)  "  Adam's  transgression  had  such  a  re- 
lation to  his  posterity,  that  in  consequence  of  it,  they 
were  constituted  sinners,  and  subjected  to  death,  and 
all  other  sufferings,  as  penal  evils ;"  he  means  all 
that  is  meant  by  the  following  expressions  in  the 
Assembly's  Catechism  and  Confession  of  Faith. 
"  The  corruption  of  his  nature,  by  which  he  is  utter- 
ly indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all 
that  is  spiritually  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all 


evil,  and  that  continually — and  thai  men  are  thus 
by  nature,  as  they  are  horn,  under  the  displeasure 
and  curse  of  God ;  justly  liable  to  all  punishments 
in  this  world  and  that  which  is  to  come." 

I  am  fortified  in  this  by  recurring  to  the  Creed 
of  the  Institution  with  which  he  is  connected,  in 
which  I  find  the  following  passage.  "  That  in  con- 
sequence of  his  [Adam's]  disobedience,  all  his 
descendants  were  constituted  sinners :  that  by  nature 
every  man  is  personally  depraved,  destitute  of  holi- 
ness, unlike  and  opposed  to  God,  and  that  previously 
to  the  renewing  agency  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  all  his 
moral  actions  are  adverse  to  the  character  and  glory 
of  God  ;  tliat  being  morally  incapable  of  recovering 
the  image  of  his  Creator,  w  hich  was  lost  in  Adam, 
every  man  is  justly  exposed  to  eternal  damnation." 

The  doctrine  respecting  the  natural  condition  of 
man,  which  I  shall  now  state,  and  endeavour  to 
maintain  in  opposition  to  this,  may  be  expressed  in 
the  following  manner. 

Man  is  by  nature,  by  which  is  to  be  understood, 
as  he  is  born  into  the  w^orld,  as  he  comes  from  the 
hands  of  the  Creator,  innocent  and  pure  ;  free  from 
all  moral  corruption,  as  well  as  destitute  of  all  posi- 
tive holiness  ;  and,  until  he  has,  by  the  exercise  of 
his  faculties,  actually  formed  a  character  either  good 
or  bad,  an  object  of  the  divine  complacency  and 
favour.  The  complacency  and  favour  of  the  Creator 
are  expressed  in  all  the  kind  provisions  that  are 
made  by  the  constitution  of  things  for  his  improve- 
ment and  happiness.  He  is  by  nature  no  more 
inclined  or  disposed  to  vice  than  to  virtue,  and  is 


21 

equally  capable,  in  the  ordinary  use  of  his  facultiesj 
and  with  the  common  assistance  afforded  him,  of 
either.  He  derives  from  his  ancestors  a  frail  and 
mortal  nature ;  is  made  with  appetites,  which  fit 
him  for  the  condition  of  being  in  which  God  has 
placed  him  ;  but  in  order  for  them  to  answer  all  the 
purposes  intended,  they  are  so  strong,  as  to  be  very 
liable  to  abuse  by  excess.  He  has  passions  implant- 
ed in  him,  which  are  of  great  importance  in  the 
conduct  of  life,  but  which  are  equally  capable  of 
impelling  him  into  a  wrong  or  a  right  course.  He 
has  natural  affections,  all  of  them  originally  good, 
but  liable  by  a  wrong  direction  to  be  the  occasion 
of  error  and  sin.  He  has  reason  and  conscience  to 
direct  the  conduct  of  life,  and  enable  him  to  choose 
aright ;  which  reason  may  yet  be  neglected,  or  per- 
verted, and  conscience  misguided.  The  whole  of 
these  togetlier  make  up  what  constitutes  his  trial 
and  probation.  They  make  him  an  accountable 
being,  a  proper  subject  to  be  treated  according  as 
he  shall  make  a  right  or  wrong  choice,  being  equally 
capable  of  either,  and  as  free  to  the  one  as  to  the 
other. 

That  this,  and  not  the  scheme  of  innate  moral 
depravity,  is  the  truth,  I  shall  endeavour  now  to 
show  by  arguments  drawn 

1.  From  observation  and  experience,  and 

2.  From  the  Scriptures. 

It  is  to  my  purpose,  previous  to  entering  on  this 
discussion,  to  observe,  what  the  Orthodox  will  not 
hesitate  to  admit,  that  judging  beforehand,  the 
scheme  of  total  moral  depravity,  or  of  any  original 


^2 

bias  to  evil  rather  than  good,  is  something  different 
from  what  we  should  expect,  and  involves  great 
difficulty  in  reconciling  it  with  the  moral  perfections 
of  God.  This,  as  I  have  before  observed,  is  implied 
(p.  29)  by  Dr.  Woods  himself.  I  admit,  with  him, 
that  this  is  not  a  sufficient  reason  for  rejecting  it  in 
opposition  to  the  evidence  of  fact,  and  of  scripture^, 
and  for  the  reason  which  he  gives,  viz.  that  we  are 
finite,  and  cannot  so  comprehend  the  purposes  and 
conduct  of  an  infinite  being,  as  to  be  certain,  that 
what  seems  to  us  inconsistent  with  his  moral  charac- 
ter, is  so  in  reality.  But  it  is  a  good  reason  for 
yielding  our  assent  with  caution,  not  till  we  have 
examined  with  care,  and  not  without  very  satisfac- 
%0YY  evidence.  It  is  a  reason  for  suspending  our 
assent,  and  reexamining,  so  as  to  be  entirely  satisfi- 
ed as  to  the  fact.  I  have  another  remark  also  to 
make.  The  doctrine,  it  is  confessed,  is  repulsive. 
The  mind  naturally  revolts  at  it.  It  seems  at  first, 
to  all  men,  universally,  to  be  inconsistent  with  the 
divine  perfection.  But  the  first  impression  is  made 
upon  us  by  the  nature  which  God  has  given  us ;  and 
I  think  we  should  be  slow  to  believe  that  a  nature, 
thus  given  to  all,  is  intended  to  mislead  and  actually 
does  mislead  all,  on  so  important  a  question.  It  is 
certainly  an  extraordinary  fact,  if  a  fact  it  is,  that 
God  should  first  give  to  man  a  corrupt  nature,  wholly 
averse  to  good  and  inclined  to  evil,  and  at  the  same 
time  endow  him  with  a  moral  discernment  and  feel- 
ings,  which  lead  him  instinctively  to  deny  that  God. 
can  so  have  made  him,  because  inconsistent  with 
justice  and  goodness  ;  that  is,  that  he  has  given  him 


a  natural  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  which  leads  him 
to  arraign  the  conduct  of  the  Being  who  made  him. 
I  proceed  now  to  the  inquiry,  what  observation 
and  experience  teach   us,  as  to   the  fact  of  human 
depravity.     And  here  we  must  not  forget,  that  the 
question  is,   not  whether  there  is   a   great  deal  of 
wickedness  in  the  world,  but  what  is  the  source  of 
that  wickedness  ;  not   whether  mankind   are   very 
corrupt,   but  how  they  became  so  ;  whether  it  is  a 
character  born  with  them,  or  acquired  ;  whether  it 
is  what  God   made  them,  or  what  they  have  made 
themselves.     All  that  is   said  of  the  prevalence  of 
wickedness  in  the  world   may  be  true,  and  yet  none 
of  it  the   effect   of  an    original    taint,  which   men 
brought  into  the  world  with  them ;  none  of  it  making 
a  part  of  their  original  nature.     I  may  acquiesce  in 
the  mournful  and  humbling  representations  given  of 
the  violence  of  human  passions,  the  brutal  excesses 
that  follow  the  unrestrained  indulgence  of  the  appe- 
tites ;  the  intemperance  and  self-indulgence   of  in- 
dividuals ;  the  wrongs,  violation  of  the  rights,  and 
neglect  of  the  duties  of  domestic  life  ;  the  injustice, 
and  fraud,  and  violence,  prevalent  in  every  form  in 
all  the  transactions   of   social  life  ;  the  pride,  and 
selfishness,  aud  regardlessness    of  the    rights    and 
feelings  of  others,  appearing  in  a  thousand  forms  ; 
the  wars  which  desolate    the  earth,  the  abuses  of 
government,  and  the  oppression  and  tyranny,  that 
are  exercised  by  some  over  the  rest  of  their  fellow- 
beings.    All  these  representations  may  be  true,  and 
no  more  than  a  just  account  of  what  actually  takes 
place,  and   yet  the  whole    be  fairly  accounted  for. 


24 

without  any  original  and  natural  bias  to  sin.  All 
may  be  but  the  effect  of  neglect  to  restrain  appe- 
tites, in  themselves  useful  and  good,  to  control  and 
give  a  proper  direction  to  passions  designed  to  be 
useful  and  capable  of  the  very  best  effects,  and  in 
general  a  failure  to  exercise  properly,  in  tempta- 
tions and  trials,  the  powers  of  direction  and  resist- 
ance, which  were  in  themselves  sufficient. 

But,  although  this  reply  may  be  made,  were  the 
representation  usually  given  of  the  human  charac- 
ter, and  of  the  prevalence  of  wickedness,  correct  in 
its  fullest  extent ;  I  am  satisfied  that  I  am  not  called 
upon  by  truth  to  make  that  concession.  I  insist, 
that  the  account  usually  given  of  human  wickedness 
is  exaggerated.  It  is  a  partial  account,  and  such 
as  gives  a  very  wrong  impression.  Men  are  not 
the  mere  brutes  and  fiends,  which  it  would  make 
them.  There  is  much  of  good  as  well  as  of  evil  in 
the  human  character,  and  in  the  conduct  of  man. 
Indeed,  I  hesitate  not  to  say,  that  as  much  as  there 
is  of  wickedness  and  vice,  there  is  far  more  of  virtue 
and  goodness;  as  much  as  there  is  of  ill-will,  un- 
kindness,  injustice,  and  inhumanity,  there  is  incom- 
parable more  of  kindness,  good  disposition,  pity, 
and  charity.  I  insist,  that  if  we  take  a  fair  and  full 
view,  we  shall  find  that  wickedness,  far  from  being 
the  prevailing  part  of  the  human  character,  makes 
but  an  inconsiderable  part  of  it.  That  in  by  far 
the  largest  part  of  human  beings,  the  just,  and 
kind,  and  benevolent  dispositions  prevail  beyond 
measure  over  the  opposite ;  and  that  even  in  the 
worst  men,  good  feelings  and  principles  are  predom- 


25 

inant,  and  they  probably  perform  in  the  course  of 
their  lives  many  more  good  than  bad  actions  ;  as 
the  greatest  liar  does,  by  the  constitution  of  his 
nature,  doubtless  speak  many  truths  to  every  lie  he 
utters.  One  grelat  source  of  misapprehension  is,  that 
virtues  and  good  qualities  are  silent,  secret,  noise- 
less ;  vices  are  bold,  public^,  noisy,  seen  by  all,  felt 
by  all,  noted  by  all. 

But  whether  this  be  so  or  not,  the  ground  for 
rejecting  the  doctrine  of  innate  original  moral  de- 
pravity will  not  be  materially  affected.  It  is  not 
supported  by  observation  and  experience,  as  we 
have  a  right  to  demand  of  a  doctrine  so  apparently 
inconsistent  with  the  moral  attributes  of  the  Deity. 

What  I  assert  upon  this  point,  and  think  to  be 
very  obvious  and  capable  of  being  made  out  to  entire 
satisfaction,  is,  that  observation  and  experience  are 
altogether  favourable  to  the  view  I  have  stated  of 
the  human  character  and  condition,  and  that  without 
revelation  there  is  nothing  that  would  lead  a  reflect- 
ing man  to  the  thought  of  an  innate  moral  ^eprav- 

It  is  easy  to  bring  together  into  one  picture,  and 
place  in  a  strong  light,  with  exaggerated  features, 
all  the  bad  passions  in  their  uncontrolled  and  un- 
qualified state,  all  the  atrocious  crimes  that  liave 
been  committed,  all  the  bad  dispositions  that  have 
been  indulged ;  but  the  picture,  though  it  contain 
nothing,  but  what  is  found  in  men,  will  be  far,  very 
far,  from  being  a  just  picture  of  human  nature.  Let 
all  that  is  virtuous,  and  kind,  and  amiable,  and 
good,  be  brought  into  the  picture,  and  presented  in 


26 

their  full  proportions,  and  the  former  will  be  found 
to  constitute  a  far  less  part  of  it,  than  we  were  ready 
to  imagine. 

Our  most  correct  ideas  of  human  nature  will  be 
drawn  from  the  characteristics   of*  infancy,  and  the 
earliest   indications    of  disposition,  tendency,  and 
character  in  the  infant  mind  ;  and  if  the  nature  of 
man  be  corrupt,  inclined  to  evil,  and  evil    only,  it 
will  appear  there  with  its  unequivocal  marks.     But 
do  we  find  it  there,  and  is  it  the  common,  untaught 
sentiment  of  mankind,  that  it  exists  there  ?  Far  from 
it.     Innocence,   and   simplicity,  and  purity  are  the 
characteristics    of  early  life.      Truth   is   natural  ; 
falsehood  is   artificial.       Veracity,  kindness,  good- 
will flow  from  the  natural  feelings.     Duplicity,  and 
all  the  cold,  and  selfish,  and  calculating  manners  of 
society  are  the  fruit  of  education,   and  intercourse 
with  the  world.    We  have  marks  enough  of  a  feeble, 
helpless  nature,   calling   for  sympathy,   assistance, 
support,  kindness ;  but  we  see  no  proofs  of  depravi- 
ty, of  malignity,  of  inclination  to  evil  in  preference 
to  good.     How  early  does  the  infant  discover  afiec- 
tion,   attachment,  gratitude  to  those  from  whom  it 
receives  kindness  !     How  universally  is  it  an  object 
of  interest  to  those  about  it !     Would  it  be  so,  if  it 
manifested  such  tokens,  as  the  orthodox  doctrine  of 
depravity  supposes,  of  an  inclination,   disposition, 
and  tendency,  wholly  directed   to  evil,  and  if  it  ap- 
peared to  possess  nothing  good,  and  no  tendency  to 
good  ?     Instead  of  this,  must  it  not  naturally  be  the 
object  of  aversion  and  disgust,  and  especially  so  to 
pious  and  virtuous  persons,  who  can  only  love  and 


27 

approve  those,  whom  God  loves  and  approves  ;  and 
who  therefore  can  see  in  little  children,  only  objects 
of  the  divine  displeasure  and  wrath,  beings  wholly 
averse  to  God  and  all  that  is  good,  and  who  deserve, 
not  sympathy  and  affection,  but  all  punishments  of 
this  world  and  the  world  to  come  ? 

It  is  often  said,  that  children  are  naturally  in- 
clined to  falsehood  and  deception,  and  that  they 
early  lie  and  deceive,  rather  than  speak  the  truth. 
But  this  charge  needs  proof;  and  I  apprehend  it 
will  be  found  that  evidence  is  abundantly  against  it, 
and  in  favour  of  the  natural  veracity  of  children. 
It  will  rarely  be  found,  that  children  disregard  the 
truth,  till  by  example,  or  bad  education,  or  peculiar 
circumstances  of  temptation,  they  have  learned  to 
overcome  and  counteract  the  tendency  of  nature. 
That  they  are  so  proverbially  simple,  unsuspicious^ 
and  easily  imposed  upon,  arises  from  their  judging 
others  by  themselves.  It  is  because  they  themselves 
are  conscious  of  no  thought  of  deceiving,  that  they 
never  suspect  others.  Great  differences  of  character 
in  this,  as  in  other  respects,  appear  at  an  early  age  5 
but  what  I  have  stated,  I  am  persuaded  is  the  gen- 
eral character,  until  the  disposition  and  tendency  of 
nature  has  been  changed  by  education,  example, 
and  circumstances. 

It  is  alleged,  also,  that  children  are  naturally 
cruel ;  and  in  proof  of  it,  the  pleasure  they  seem  to 
take  in  torturing  insects  and  small  animals  is  some- 
times mentioned.  But  the  pleasure,  which  the 
convulsions  and  throes  of  a  tortured  insect  or  animal 
give  to   a  child,  arises   from  another  source  than 


28 

cruelty,  or  the  desire  of  giving  pain.  It  is  wholly 
to  be  attributed  to  the  love  of  excitement,  and  the 
pleasure  it  takes  in  rapid  and  violent  motion  ;  and 
is  wholly  unconnected  with  the  idea  of  suffering  in 
the  creature,  with  whose  convulsions  it  is  delighted. 
The  same  pleasure  would  be  derived  from  the  power 
of  producing  the  same  convulsive  motions,  and  the 
same  appearance  in  any  inanimate  substance.  In 
proof  of  this,  let  a  clear  idea  of  the  suffering  of  the 
insect  be  communicated  to  the  child,  and  it  will  no 
longer  take  pleasure  in  its  convulsions.  A  sentiment 
of  compassion  will  be  raised.  It  will  be  as  eager  to 
rescue  it  from  its  suffering,  as  before  it  was  to  inflict 
that  suffering.  This  I  am  persuaded  will  usually, 
if  not  always,  be  the  case.  But  if  it  were  from  native 
cruelty,  the  love  of  inflicting  pain,  or  from  any  de- 
pravity of  nature ;  instead  of  ceasing  from  it  the 
moment  it  was  made  acquainted  with  the  suffering 
of  the  animal,  that  knowledge  would  be  a  new  motive 
to  proceed  ;  as  it  would  give  it  the  satisfaction  of 
knowing,  that  its  malignant  purpose  was  effected,  its 
cruel  design  accomplished.  The  same  account  is 
to  be  given  of  what  is  often  called  a  mischievous 
ilisposition  in  children.  It  is  not  the  love  of  mischief, 
but  an  exuberant  love  of  activity.  The  mischief  or 
inconvenience  which  they  occasion  to  others  is  no 
part  of  the  motive,  but  simply  the  love  of  action  and 
strong  excitement ;  and  it  may  be  accompanied  with 
the  kindest  feelings,  the  most  sincere  desire  of  giv- 
ing pleasure  to  others,  and  as  sincere  an  unwilling- 
ness to  give  pain  or  to  cause  uneasiness  or  dis- 
pleaeure. 


d9 

Indeed  I  know  not  a  single  mark  of  early  de- 
pravity, common  to  children  in  general,  which  may 
not,  as  these  are,  be  fairly  traced  to  causes,  which 
imply  no  degree  of  depravity,  and  no  fault  of  char- 
acter, or  of  disposition.  Individuals  there  may  be, 
who  give  very  early  tokens  of  great  perversity  of 
mind,  and  corruption  of  heart.  But  these  are  ex- 
ceptions from  the  general  character  of  human  na- 
ture, and,  as  such,  have  no  place  in  the  present 
argument ;  and  if  they  had  any,  would  be  decisive, 
not  in  favour  of  the  orthodox  doctrine,  but  against 
it ;  as  the  exception,  in  its  nature,  proves  the  oppo- 
site rule.  If  great  depravity  is  the  exception,  ex- 
emption from  depravity  must  be  the  rule. 

No  man,  I  am  persuaded,  was  ever  led  by  per- 
sonal observation  and  experience  to  the  thought  of 
an  original  depravity  of  human  nature,  according  to 
which,  by  the  bias  of  nature,  all,  without  exception, 
who  come  into  the  world,  are  from  their  birth 
inclined  wholly  to  evil,  and  averse  to  good. 

And  as  little,  I  am  persuaded,  would  any  one  be 
led  to  such  an  opinion  by  the  general  current  of 
scripture.  I  am  led  to  think  so  by  a  general  view 
of  the  commands,  precepts,  exhortations,  promises, 
-and  threatenings  of  religion,  and  by  the  whole  his- 
tory of  the  divine  dispensations  to  men  ;  and  also 
by  attending  to  a  great  number  of  particulars,  each 
of  which,  separately,  seems  to  me  to  imply,  that 
mankind  come  into  the  world  innocent  and  pure,  the 
objects  of  the  complacency  of  the  Creator,  and  no 
more  inclined,  by  the  nature  God  has  given  them,  to 
sin,  than  to  virtue ;  no  more  disposed  to  hate  and 
4 


30 

disobey,  than  to  love  and  obey  their  Maker.  I  shall 
instance  only  in  one,  but  that  alone,  in  my  opinion, 
is  decisive  of  the  question.  I  refer  to  the  manner 
in  which  little  children  are,  on  two  occasions,  spoken 
of  by  our  Saviour,  and  on  one  by  the  Apostle  Paul. 
(Matt.  xix.  14)  *^  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto 
me — for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  These 
appear  to  have  been  infants,  or  at  least  very  small 
children,  for  he  took  them  into  his  arms  and  blessed 
them.  There  is  no  intimation  of  any  thing  peculiar 
in  them  ;  no  evidence  that  they  were  a  few,  selected 
from  among  many ;  nothing  to  suggest  that  they 
were  different  from  other  children  ;  but  rather,  that 
they  were  like  other  children.  There  is  not  the 
slightest  intimation  that  these  particular  children 
had  become  the  subjects  of  any  great  moral  change. 
But  if  they  were  depraved,  destitute  of  holiness, 
averse  from  all  good,  inclined  to  all  evil,  enemies  of 
God,  subjects  of  his  wrath,  justly  liable  to  all  pun- 
ishments, could  our  Saviour  declare,  respecting 
them,  ^^  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God  ?''  And  could 
he,  on  another  occasion,  say,  (Matt,  xviii.  3)  ''  Un- 
less ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little  children, 
ye  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ?"  And 
again,  (Mark  x.  14.  Luke  xviii.  16)  "  Whosoever 
shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little 
child,  he  shall  not  enter  therein  ?'' 

Could  the  Apostle  Paul  recommend  to  the  Co- 
rinthians, (1  Cor.  xiv.  20)  "  Be  not  children  in 
understanding,  but  in  malice  be  ye  children,  but  in 
understanding  be  men  ;''  that  is,  in  understanding, 
in  the  power  of  distinguishing  right  and  wrong,  and 


31 

perceiving  the  truth,  show  yourselves  to  be  men  ; 
but  in  your  dispositions,  in  your  moral  characters, 
manifest  the  gentleness,  and  mildness,  and  purity  of 
children  ?  I  know  not  how  these  passages  are  to  be 
explained,  so  as  to  consist  with  the  doctrine  of  innate 
depravity,  rendering  those  who  are  the  subjects  of 
it  enemies  to  God,  &c.  until  renewed  by  the  special 
influence  of  the  spirit  of  God.  I  have  never  seen 
them  satisfactorily  explained  upon  that  supposition, 
nor  do  I  believe  that  they  admit  of  such  explanation. 
They  most  clearly  imply,  until  turned  from  their 
obvious  meaning,  that  young  children  are  objects  of 
the  Saviour's  complacency  and  affection  ;  that  their 
innocency,  gentleness,  and  good  disposition  are  the 
proper  objects  of  irritation ;  that  they  are,  what  men 
are  to  become  by  conversion  or  regeneration. 

But  there  are,  as  I  liave  said,  a  few  texts,  from 
which  the  doctrine  I  am  considering  is  inferred ;  and 
these  have  been  brought  forward,  and  placed  in  all 
the  strength  of  which  they  are  capable,  by  those 
who  believe  and  defend  the  doctrine,  and  particu- 
larly by  the  able  advocate  it  has  found  in  the  author 
of  the  pamphlet  before  me. 

It  is  not  pretended,  I  believe,  by  any  of  the 
defenders  of  the  native,  hereditary  depravity  of  the 
human  race,  that  the  doctrine  is,  any  where  in 
scripture,  expressly  asserted.  It  is  not  a  matter  of 
direct  assertion,  but  of  inference.  It  i^  considered 
as  implied  in  several  passages.  Now  I  admit  that 
a  doctrine,  no  where  expressly  taught,  may  yet  be 
so  clearly  and  constantly  implied,  may  so  enter  into 
the  whole  texture  of  the  sacred  writings,  and  appear 


32 

in  every  part,  as  to  be  as  reasonable  an  object  of 
our  foith,  as  those  doctrines,  which  are  the  most 
distinctly  and  formally  enunciated.  But  examples  of 
this  kind  are  usually  (I  will  not  affirm  always,  but 
usually)  such  as  are  presented,  not  a  few  times  only, 
and  then  in  a  doubtful  form,  but  such  as  appear 
constantly,  and  enter  as  it  were  into  the  very  sub- 
stance of  the  whole.  Such,  for  instance,  is  the  being 
of  God,  no  where  asserted,  but  every  where  implied. 
Such  is  the  moral  freedom  of  man,  upon  which 
rests  his  accountability  as  a  moral  being ;  and  such, 
in  my  apprehension,  is  the  doctrine,  that  men  be- 
come sinners,  guilty  before  God,  and  objects  of  his 
displeasure  only  by  their  personal  acts,  and  not  by 
the  nature  with  which  they  came  into  being. 

The  first  text  adduced,  as  implying  innate  total 
depravity,  is  Gen.  vi.  5.  A  few  remarks  will  show 
how  little  it  is  to  the  purpose,  and  how  far  from 
supporting  what  is  made  to  rest  upon  it.  For,  in 
the  first  place,  it  relates  not  to  mankind  universally, 
but  to  the  degenerate  race  of  men  of  that  age,  so 
remarkably  and  universally  corrupt,  beyond  all  that 
had  gone  before,  or  have  followed  since,  as  to  call 
for  the  most  signal  tokens  of  the  vengeance  of 
heaven.  In  the  second  place,  were  it  said  of  all 
men  in  every  age,  instead  of  being  confined,  as  it  is, 
to  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  at  that  particular 
time,  it  would  still  be  nothing  to  the  purpose,  for 
which  it  is  brought.  There  is  no  assertion  of  native 
derived  depravity,  none  of  a  corrupt  nature,  no 
intimation  of  hereditary  guilt,  no  reference  to  innate 
aversion  to  good  and  inclination  to  evil.     It  is  the 


33 

mere  assertion  of  a  state  of  great  corruption  and 
wickedness^  which  no  one  denies  ;  and  not  only  of 
external  actions,  such  as  "  the  world  heing  full  of 
violence/'  but  of  purposes  and  dispositions  of  the 
heart,  implying  deep-rooted  and  radical  wickedness, 
expressed  by  "  the  imaginations  of  the  heart."  But 
this  is  all  perfectly  consistent  with  their  coming  into 
being,  innocent  and  pure.  It  is  not  what  they  are 
by  nature,  but  by  habit ;  not  what  they  were  as  they 
came  from  the  hands  of  the  Creator,  but  what  they 
have  become  in  the  use  or  rather  abuse  of  his  gifts, 
and  of  the  condition  in  which  he  placed  them. 

It  is  said  that  the  language  here  is  universal,  as 
also  when  it  is  used  again  in  the  viii.  chapter ;  and 
that  its  application  to  man  universally  in  all  ages 
and  nations,  is  confirmed  by  the  passages  quoted 
by  Paul,  in  the  iii.  chapter  of  Romans  from  Psalms 
xiv.  liii.  V.  cxl.  x.  xxxvi.  and  Isaiah  lix.  where  he 
describes  Jews  and  Gentiles  of  that  age,  in  passages 
borrowed  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  applies 
them  as  descriptive  of  the  character  of  mankind 
without  exception.  But  in  each  case  the  argument 
wholly  fails  of  proving  what  it  is  brought  to  prove ; 
because  it  depends  for  its  force  on  an  interpretation 
of  language,  which"  cannot  be  adopted  without  lead- 
ing to  consequences,  which  the  advocates  of  univer- 
sal original  depravity  would  be  as  slow  to  admit,  as 
its  opposers.  ~-~~-^ 

It  goes  on  the  supposition  that  the  sacred  writers         j 
used  words,  as  no  other  writers  ever  did  use  them,         ' 
with  perfect  philosophical  exactness,  instead  of  the      \^' 
popular  sense  ;  and  that  their  writings  were  to  be 


34 

interpreted  by  rules,  to  which  no   other  writing* 
will  bear  to  be  subjected. 

Universal  expressions,  like  those  in  the  texts  in 
question,  are  so  far  from  being  always  used  in  their 
strict  literal  sense,  that  they  are  usually  relative^  to 
be  understood  and  interpreted  in  relation  to  the 
subject  and  occasion.  Thus  when  it  is  said,  (1  Tim. 
ii.  4)  "  God  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved  and  come 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,"  it  relates  to  the 
question,  whether  any  class  or  nation  of  men  are 
excluded  from  the  favour  and  good-will  of  God,  and 
therefore  ought  to  be  excluded  from  a  share  in  the 
benevolent  regards  and  prayers  of  Christians  ;  so 
that  all  men  means,  not  every  individual,  but  all 
ranks,  descriptions,  and  conditions  of  men.  In  the 
unlimited  sense  of  the  words  it  is  not  true.  It  is  not 
true  that  God  wills  every  individual  to  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  truth,  i.  e.  of  the  Gospel ;  for  thou- 
sands are  precluded  from  the  possibility  of  it  by 
the  circumstances  of  their  being.  Nor  is  it  true, 
that  he  wills  all  men  to  be  finally  saved ;  but  only 
all  of  every  rank,  and  every  nation,  who  are 
penitent,  obedient,  and  faithful.  He  wills  none 
to  be  excluded  from  having  the  truth  proposed, 
and  salvation  offered  to  them.  And  that  all, 
w^ho  receive  and  obey  it,  shall  actually  obtain 
the  salvation  offered.  So  also  (Tit.  ii.  11)  when 
it  is  said,  "  the  grace  of  God  bringing  salvation 
hath  appeared  to  all  men,*'  the  meaning  cannot  be, 
every  individualj  for  it  never  has  been  published  to 
all  in  that  sense.  But,  as  in  the  other  case,  to 
men  of  every  nation,  age,  rank,  condition,  and  in  the 


35 

same  sense  in  which  Paul  (Col.  i.  23)  spoke  of  the 
Gospel,  as  "  preached  to  every  creature  under 
heaven/' 

It  is  in  a  similar,  popular,  qualified  sense,  a 
sense  never  leading  men  into  mistakes  upon  other 
subjects  and  common  occasions,  that  Moses,  speak- 
ing of  the  general  wickedness  and  corruption  of 
manners,  which  were  the  occasion  of  the  flood,  uses 
language,  which  in  its  strictly  literal  import  might 
be  understood  to  mean,  that  there  was  no  virtue 
remaining  on  the  earth ;  though  he  immediately 
tells  us,  that  Noah  was  an  exception  to  the  prevail- 
ing wickedness,  that  ^^  he  found  favour  in  the  eyes 
of  the  Lord,  (ch.  vi.  8,  9)  being  a  just  man,  perfect 
in  his  generations,  and  one  who  walked  with  God.'' 

The  same  remark  occurs  with  equal  force  in 
respect  to  the  passage  so  much  relied  on  in  the  xiv. 
Psalm.  Not  only  is  there  no  intimation  as  to  the 
origin  and  source  of  the  evil,  no  intimation  of  an 
inbred,  innate,  hereditary  depravity,  but  only  of 
great  and  general  corruption  of  manners  ;  but, 
though  a  verbal  universality  is  expressed,  the  very 
Psalm  itself  takes  care  to  teach  us  with  what  quali- 
fications it  is  to  be  understood.  For  while  it  asserts, 
in  the  strong  language  of  emotion  and  eastern  hy- 
perbole, "  that  all  were  gone  aside,  all  together 
become  filthy,  none  that  did  good,  no,  not  one,^^  the 
writer  seems  wholly  unconscious  of  a  design  to  have 
his  language  understood  according  to  its  literal 
import ;  for  he  immediately  goes  on  with  expressions 
absolutely  incompatible  with  such  a  meaning.  He 
goes  on  to  speak  of  a  ^^  people  of  God,  a  generation 


36 

of  the  righteous,  whose  refuge  was  God.^'  The  same 
is  the  case  with  each  of  the  other  Psalms,  quoted  by 
Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

But  it  is  of  little  comparative  importance, 
whether  the  authors  of  the  Psalms,  or  the  Apostle  in 
quoting  them,  meant  to  be  understood  as  expressing 
a  general  truth  in  popular  language,  or  as  expressing 
themselves  with  literal  philosophical  exactness. 
Understand  them  in  the  most  unlimited,  unqualified 
sense,  of  which  their  words  are  capable,  they  ex* 
press  only  what  no  one  will  deny,  that  all  men  are 
sinners.  The  question  will  still  be  open,  as  before, 
how  this  universality  of  sin  and  great  corruption  of 
manners  are  to  be  accounted  for.  Whether,  as  the 
advocates  of  Orthodoxy  contend,  men  come  into  the 
world  with  a  corrupt  nature,  prone  only  to  wicked- 
ness, and  utterly  incapable  of  any  good  thought  or 
action,  till  renewed  by  an  influence  of  the  holy  spirit, 
which  they  can  do  nothing  to  procure  ;  or  as  Unita- 
rians believe,  this  corrupt  nature  is  not  what  they 
received  from  God,  but  what  they  have  made  for 
themselves.  That  they  were  not  made  sinners,  but 
became  so  by  yielding  to  temptations,  which  it  was 
in  their  power  to  resist ;  by  obeying  the  impulse  of 
the  passions,  and  the  calls  of  appetite,  in  opposition 
to  the  direction  of  reason  and  the  notices  of  con- 
science ;  by  subjecting  themselves  to  the  dominion 
of  the  inferior  part  of  their  nature,  instead  of  put- 
ting themselves  under  the  guidance  of  their  superior 
faculties. 

Questions  may  be  asked   upon  this  statement, 
which  cannot   be  answered,  because   we   have  not 


37 

faculties  which  enable  us  in  any  cases  to  trace  things 
up  to  the  first  cause  and  spring  of  action.  But  no 
difficulty  so  great  and  insurmountable  meets  us,  as, 
on  the  opposite  theory,  is  the  moral  difficulty  in 
which  it  involves  the  character  of  the  Author  of  our 
being.  When  we  have  traced  back  the  wickedness 
of  men,  as  it  actually  exists,  to  the  voluntary  neg- 
lect, and  perversion,  and  abuse  of  the  nature  God 
has  given  them,  we  can  go  no  farther. 

It  is  asserted,  (pp.  38,  39)  "  that  when  we  read 
in  the  Bible  the  highest  descriptions  of  human  wick- 
edness in  the  old  world,  in  Sodom,  in  Canaan,  in 
Jerusalem  ;  or  of  the  wickedness  of  individuals,  as 
Pharaoh,  Saul,  Jeroboam,  and  Judas  ;  it  is  perfectly 
just  and  natural  for  us  to  reflect,  such  is  human  na- 
ture, such  is  mem  ;  and  orthodox  writers  reason  in 
an  unexceptionable  manner,  when  they  undertake 
to  show,  what  hmncm  nature  is,  from  the  description 
which  is  given  of  the  wickedness  of  man  in  the  Old 
Testament.'' 

The  writer,  I  think,  must  perceive  that  he  has 
expressed  himself  rashly  or  carelessly,  when  he 
considers  clear'y  the  force  and  bearing  of  what  he 
has  said  in  the  above  paragraph.  Are  we  to  con- 
sider those  places,  which,  singled  out  and  distin- 
guished from  all  others,  are  expressly  declared  to 
have  been  destroyed  for  their  enormous  and  incor- 
rigible wickedness,  as  fair  representatives  of  the 
usual  state  and  character  of  the  human  race  ?  Peo- 
ple, who  were  ordered  to  be  wholly  extirpated  for 
the  very  purpose  of  stopping  the  contagion  of  their 

viceS;  preventing  the  spread   of  the  infection,  and 
5 


38 

serving  as  a  warning  to  other  nations  to  prevent 
their  becoming  like  them  ?  Are  Pharaoh,  Jeroboam, 
and  JudaSj  fair  examples  and  representatives  of 
human  nature  ?  Men,  singled  out  in  a  history  of 
two  thousand  years,  as  instances  of  uncommon 
wickedness,  visited  with  as  uncommon  tokens  of 
retributory  justice  ?  Let  it  be  asked,  why  the 
cruelty  and  obstinacy  of  Pharaoh,  rather  than  the 
humanity,  and  piety,  and  meekness  of  Moses  ;  why 
the  idolatry,  and  unprincipled  ambition,  and  selfish- 
ness of  Jeroboam,  rather  than  the  piety,  tenderness 
of  conscience,  and  public  spirit  of  Josiah  ;  why  the 
single  wretch,  who  was  so  base  and  sordid  as  to  sell 
and  betray  his  Master,  rather  than  the  eleven,  who 
were  true  and  faithful  to  him,  should  be  selected  as 
specimens  of  the  race  to  which  they  belong,  and  the 
great  community  of  which  they  make  a  part? 

Would  you  select  the  period  of  seven  years' 
famine,  as  an  example  of  the  usual  fertility  of 
Egypt?  The  desolating  pestilence  in  the  days  of 
David,  as  a  fair  specimen  of  the  salubrity  of  the 
climate  of  Israel  ?  Would  you  go  to  a  lazar- house 
or  hospital,  rather  than  to  the  fields,  the  wharves, 
and  the  factories,  to  know  what  is  the  usual  state  of 
human  health  and  activity  ?  Is  an  ideot  or  a  mad- 
man a  just  specimen  of  the  human  intellect?  Or 
are  we  to  find  in  our  prisons,  and  at  the  gallows, 
in  highwaymen,  pirates,  and  murderers,  a  true 
index  to  point  out  the  general  morals  of  the  com- 
munity ? 

It  is   unnecessary  to  multiply  remarks    on  the 
next  text  brought  to  prove  human  depravity.    (Jer. 


39 

xvii.  9)   '^  The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things, 
and  desperately  wicked."     Admit  that  it  relates  to 
a  prevailing  trait  in  the  human  character ;  do  we 
not  well  know,  that,  in  the  common  use  of  language, 
such  general  expressions  are   seldom   to    be  under- 
stood as  universal  in  their  application  ?     They  are 
to  be  understood   in   a   limited  and   popular  sense. 
What  is  more  than  this,  though  the  text  were  intend- 
ed  to   express  a  trait  of   character  absolutely  uni- 
versal, it  has  no  more  relation  to   the  question  res- 
pecting the  source  of  human  wickedness,  whether  it 
be  natural  or  acquired,  than  any  other  descriptions 
of  prevalent  wickedness  in  the  world.    But  the  total 
irrelevancy  of  the   text  to   the  purpose,  for  which 
it  is  brought,  appears  best  by  considering  the  sub- 
ject  matter,  about  which   it  is  introduced.      The 
prophet  is  stating  the  safety  of  trusting  in  God,  and 
the  insecurity  of  trusting  in  man.      The   reason  is, 
that  men  are  deceitful,  and  not  to  be  depended  on. 
Now  this  reason  would  be  good,  and  support  the 
prophet's  conclusion,  though  deceit  and  treachery 
were  not  the  universal,  though  they  were   not  even 
the  general  character   of  men.     Were  there  many 
to    be  found,   who    would   deceive    and  betray,  it 
would  be  sufficient  to    justify  the  prophet,  in  with- 
drawing men  from   their  confidence   in  man,    and 
teaching  them  to  place  it   in  him,  who  can  never 
fail,   and  will   never    deceive.     And  it  would  suf- 
ficiently account  for  his  adding  in  the  next  verse, 
"  I  the  Lord  search  the  heart."    However  deceitful 
men  may  be,  and  able  to  impose  on  men,  there  is 


40 

onej  who  is  able  to  detect,  and  will  not  fail  to  pun- 
ish. 

From  the  New  Testament,  the  first  passage  se- 
lected, as  implying  the  doctrine  under  consideration, 
is  the  answer  of  Christ  to  Nicodemus,  (John  iii.  3) 
^^  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the 
kingdom  of  God."  It  is  contended,  (pp.  42,  43) 
that  the  universal  necessity  of  regeneration,  expres- 
sed in  this  text,  implies  universal  depravity.  "^That 
this  necessity  of  a  moral  renovation  arises  from  the 
character  man  possesses  in  consequence  of  his  nat- 
ural birth  ;  that  all  must  be  born  again,  because, 
and  only  because,  all  without  exception  are,  by 
nature,  or  in  consequence  of  their  natural  birth,  in 
such  a  state  of  moral  impurity,  as  disqualifies  them 
for  the  enjoyments  of  heaven,  unless  they  are  re- 
newed by  the  holy  spirit." 

A  single  consideration  convinces  me,  tliat  the 
inference  is  without  foundation,  and  that  the  uni- 
versal necessity  of  regeneration  may  consist  with 
original  innocency,  and  exemption  from  any  pre- 
vailing tendency,  as  we  are  born  into  the  world,  to 
vice  rather  than  virtue.  By  their  natural  birth 
men  only  become  human,  reasonable,  accountable 
beings.  ^^  What  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh. '^  They 
receive  by  their  natural  birth  only  the  human 
nature.  They  receive  no  moral  character,  but  only 
the  faculties  and  powers,  in  the  exercise  of  which  a 
moral  character  is  to  be  formed.  The  formation  of 
this  character  introduces  them  into  a  new  state  of 
being,  and  by  whatever  means,  and  at  whatever  time 
it  takes  place,  it  may  be  called,  by  no  very  remote 


41 

or  unusual  figure,  a  new  birth ;  and  those,  who  have 
thus  acquired  a  moral  character,  and  received  the 
principles  of  a  spiritual  life,  in  addition  to  the 
natural  human  life,  may  be  said  to  be  born  again. 
Now  if  this  was  what  Jesus  meant  in  what  he  said 
to  Nicodemus,  it  will  no  more  imply  original  sin, 
than  original  holiness.  It  will  only  imply  the  ab- 
sence or  want  of  that,  which  was  necessary  to  be- 
coming a  subject  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  terms 
nexv  birthf  horn  again^  bom  of  the  spirit^  i'e?2ewed, 
become  a  new  man,  are  applied  with  as  much  pro- 
priety to  those,  who  receive  the  influences  of  the 
Gospel,  and  acquire  the  character,  which  it  is  in- 
tended to  form,  on  the  supposition  of  original  inno- 
cence and  purity,  as  upon  that  of  native  depravity 
and  original  sinfulness.  In  each  case  alike,  it  ex- 
presses a  great  moral  change,  and  implies  the 
formation  of  a  new  character,  not  possessed  before. 
On  the  supposition,  therefore,  that  this  passage 
refers,  as  is  generally  supposed  by  interpreters,  to 
that  great  moral  change,  which  the  religion  of  the 
Gospel  is  to  produce  on  those  who  embrace  it,  in 
order  to  their  being  fit  members  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  on  earth  and  in  glory  ;  it  will  be  seen  to  be 
nothing  to  the  purpose  of  those,  who  attempt  to  build 
upon  it  the  doctrine  of  a  moral  depravity,  with 
which  all  men  are  born  into  the  world.  It  will  only 
imply,  that  they  do  not  possess  by  birth  that  char- 
acter of  personal  holiness  and  positive  virtue,  which 
is  necessary  to  their  being  Christians,  fit  subjects  of 
the  present  and  future  kingdom  of  God. 


43 

The  passage,  (Rom.  v.  12)  "  Wherefore,  as  by 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by 
sin,  and  sol  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all 
have  sinned,"  is  of  another  kind,  and  to  be  shown 
to  have  no  relation  to  the  subject  by  other  consid- 
erations. The  whole  force  of  this  passage,  (if  it 
have  any,  as  relates  to  this  subject,)  lies  in  the  last 
clause,  ^*  For  that  all  have  sinned."  Now  if  this 
clause  be  understood  in  a  sense,  which  shall  prove 
any  thing  to  tlie  purpose,  it  will  prove  the  genuine 
old  Calvinistic  doctrine,  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin.  It  leads  back  to  the  notion  of  a  federal  head, 
of  Adam's  acting  not  only  on  his  own  responsibility, 
but  for  all  his  posterity ;  acting  in  their  stead,  so 
that  his  action  was  theirs,  and  they  '^  sinned  in  him 
and  fell  with  him  in  his  first  transgression."  They 
are  all  sinners  by  the  sin  of  him,  their  representa- 
tive, federal  head.  The  myriads  who  die  in  earliest 
infancy,  before  it  is  possible  for  them  to  perform 
any  act,  or  to  have  any  volition,  either  sinful  or 
virtuous,  yet  die  because  they  are  sinners.  They 
are  sinners  then  by  the  sin  of  another,  by  the  im- 
putation of  sin  to  them  ;  and  this  is  the  true  doctrine 
of  Calvinism  ;  and  this,  it  seems  to  me,  is  also  the 
doctrine  of  Dr.  Woods,  notwithstanding  his  explicit 
rejection  of  it,  as  stated  in  words.  For,  besides 
that  he  acquiesces  in  the  qualified  statement  of 
Stapfer,  (p.  45)  (which,  after  all,  must  mean  the 
doctrine  of  imputation  in  its  full  extent,  if  it  have 
any  intelligible  meaning ;  since  God's  giving  Adam 
a  posteritij  like  himself,  if  it  mean  any  thing  to  the 


43 

purpose,  must  mean  shiners  like  himself;)  besides 
this,  he  asserts,  that  the  Apostle's  reasoning  goes 
on  the  ground,  that  (p.  46)  "  Adam's  transgression 
had,  in  the  plan  of  the  divdne  administration,  such  a 
relation  to  his  posterity,  that  in  consequence  of  it^, 
they  were  constituted  sinners,  and  subjected  to 
death  and  ali  other  sufferings,  as  penal  evils.'^  Now 
if  the  posterity  of  Adam  being  constituted  sinners, 
and  subjected  to  all  sufferings,  as  penal  evils,  that 
is,  as  punishments,  in  consequence  of  his  transgres- 
sion, mean  any  thing  to  the  purpose  for  which  it 
is  introduced,  and  yet  short  of  the  common  Calvin- 
istic  notion  of  imputation,  I  am  unable  to  perceive 
what  it  is,  and  it  needs  explanation,  and  a  more 
definite  statement,  than  I  have  seen. 

But  I  am  persuaded  the  passage  has  no  suck 
meaning.  It  is  a  single  phrase  taken  away  from  its 
connexion,  and  what  is  more,  out  of  the  middle  of 
an  argument.  Did  it  therefore,  as  it  does  not,  ex- 
press distinctly  our  original  native  depravity,  it 
would  give  very  little  satisfaction  alone  ;  for  there 
is  no  sentiment  so  absurd,  that  it  may  not  be  sup- 
ported by  single  sentences,  thus  detached  from  the 
connexion  in  which  they  are  used.  But  I  have 
observed  that  in  its  most  obvious  sense  it  expresses 
no  such  native  corruption.  Understood  literally, 
the  only  assertion  it  contains  with  certainty  is  that 
of  a  fact,  which  none  will  deny,  the  universality  of 
sin,  that  all  have  sinned.  Now  the  nature  of  the 
universality  intended  to  be  asserted,  in  this,  as  in 
every  case,  is  to  be  learned  from  the  circumstances 
of  the  case.     All  who  are  capable  of  sinning,  all  as 


44 

sooji  as  they  are  capable  of  it,  all  as  soon  as  they 
are  moral  agents.  Such  limitations  of  the  sense  of 
universal  expressions  in  other  cases  are  constantly 
occurring.  Were  all  the  inhabitants  of  a  country 
required  to  take  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  govern- 
ment ;  the  requisition  would  be  considered  as  com- 
plied withj  though  no  infants  and  small  children  had 
taken  the  oath,  and  all  would  be  considered  as  in- 
cluded under  its  obligation.  But  there  is  another 
consideration,  which  ought  to  prevent  this  text 
from  being  considered  of  any  weight  on  the  subject. 
The  whole  passage  in  which  it  stands  is  one  of  the 
most  intricate  and  difficult  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  phrase,*  on  which  so  much  is  made  to  depend, 
admits  equally  well  of  several  different  translations, 
each  of  which  will  give  it  a  different  meaning  ;  and 
its  connexion  with  the  passage  in  which  it  stands  is 
not  such,  as  to  help  us,  to  any  degree  of  certainty, 
in  determining  by  which  version  its  true  sense  is 
expressed.  Dr.  Woods  himself,  "  allows  it  to  be 
in  some  respects  very  obscure.''  He  will  doubtless 
admit  then,  that  the  support  derived  to  a  doctrine. 


*  'E0'  a,  in  our  translation,  "for  that,''^  has  been  rendered 
by  the  several  phrases,  because,  inasmuch  as,  as  far  as,  in 
whom,  unto  which,  after  whom,  on  account  of  ivhom.  When 
meanings  so  various  are  assigned  to  this  text  by  Schleusner, 
Eisner,  Taylor,  Doddridge,  Whitby,  and  Macknight,  I  am 
justified  in  attributing  to  it  a  degree  of  obscurity  and  uncer- 
tainty, which  should  prevent  it  from  being  alleged  with  much 
confidence  in  proof  of  any  doctrine,  which  it  may  be  supposed 
to  express. 


45 

depending  on  any  particular  translation  of  this 
textj  or  any  particular  meaning  assigned  to  it,  will 
be  of  very  little  value  ;  of  none  indeed  any  farther, 
than  it  receives  support  itself  from,  other  plainer 
passages. 

Ephesians  ii.  3,  ^^  And  were  by  nature  children 
of  wrath,  even  as  others.''  The  connexion  and 
circumstances  of  the  case  show  the  meaning  of  this 
verse,  and  that  it  furnishes  no  proof  of  inbred  moral 
corruption,  but  only  of  corrupt  and  wicked  habits. 
It  refers  to  the  former  state  of  Jews  as  well  as 
heathen,  before  their  conversion  to  Christianity. 
In  that  state,  they  were  all  alike  children  of  wrath, 
deserving  of  wrath,  not  as  they  came  into  the  world, 
not  as  they  came  from  their  Maker's  hand,  but  as 
they  became  by  the  habits,  and  customs,  and  prac- 
tices of  that  state  into  which  they  were  born  ;  which 
was  a  state  of  nature,  as  compared  with  the  state  of 
grace,  into  which  they  were  introduced  by  Chris- 
tianity. What  they  were  before  they  became 
Christians,  they  were  by  nature  ;  what  they  became 
afterward,  v/as  by  the  grace  of  God,  which  appear- 
ed bringing  salvation.  The  state  of  nature  was 
that,  into  which  they  came  by  their  birth  ;  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  state  of  grace  into  which  they 
came,  when  they  embraced  Christianity.  When 
they  received  Christianity,  they  were  born  again, 
born  of  water  by  their  baptism,  born  of  the  spirit 
by  receiving  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  by  being 
renewed  in  the  temper  of  their  mind.  Then  they 
were   no  longer   children   of  wrath,  when  the  new 


46 

birth  was  completed,  and  their  religion  had  pro- 
duced all  its  moral  effects. 

According  to  this  view  of  the  subject,  the  state 
of  nature  has  no  reference  to  what  a  man  brings  into 
the  world  with  him,  but  it  stands  opposed  to  a  state 
of  grace.  It  is  that  state  in  which  all  are,  Jews  as 
well  as  Gentiles,  before  they  become  Christians. 
This  language  of  the  Apostle,  like  much  of  that  in 
the  Epistles,  referring  to  the  same  subject,  relates 
to  men,  as  bodies  of  men,  not  as  individuals.  It 
compares  them  together  as  bodies,  not  as  individuals. 
It  speaks  of  them  generally,  as  in  their  heathen  and 
Jewish  state,  and  then  in  their  Christian  state.  In 
the  former  "  dead  in  sin,''  in  the  latter  "  quickened, 
and  raised  up,"  and  (v.  5,  6)  "  made  to  sit  together 
in  heavenly  places." 

The  former,  (12, 13)  "Strangers,  aliens,  without 
God,  without  hope,  afar  off;"  the  latter,  "^^  made 
nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ." 

The  former,  (19)  "  Strangers  and  foreigners;" 
the  latter,  "  fellow-citizens  with  the  saints,  and  of 
the  household  of  God." 

The  former,  (3,  1)  "children  of  wrath,  having 
their  conversation  in  the  lusts  of  the  flesh,  dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins  ;"  the  latter,  (4,  5,  10)  "  by  the 
rich  mercy  of  God,  quickened,  saved  by  grace, 
created  by  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works." 

The  whole  of  this  refers  to  the  same  thing ;  not 
to  the  personal  condition  of  individuals  as  such,  but 
to  that  of  the  whole  body  of  Christians,  as  quicken- 
ed and  raised  from  the  moral  and  spiritual  death  of 


47 

their  original  Jewish  and  heathen  state ;  as  deliver- 
ed from  the  state  of  wrath,  in  which  they  had  lived 
from  their  birth ;  and,  by  the  rich  mercy  of  God 
and  the  faith  of  the  Gospel,  made  to  sit  together  in 
heavenly  places,  that  is,  to  enjoy  all  the  privileges 
and  hopes  of  Christians. 

It  has  no  reference  therefore  to  the  state  in 
which  persons  are  born  into  the  world  in  all  ages. 
Those  now  born  into  the  world,  in  Christian  lands, 
are  not  in  the  same  sense  that  these  Ephesians 
were,  children  of  rvrath  by  nature,  but  as  these 
same  Ephesians  were,  after  their  conversion  to 
Christianity,  saved  by  the  grace  of  God,  quickened, 
raised  from  the  dead,  made  nigh  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,  fellow -citizens  with  the  saints,  of  the  house- 
hold of  God. 

All  this  language  was  applied  to  the  Ephesians 
universally  after  their  conversion,  and  all  of  it  is  as 
applicable  universally  now  to  those,  who  are  Chris- 
tians by  birth,  as  distinguished  from  those,  who  are 
heathen  by  birth. 

The  phrase  we  are  considering  then  must  be 
seen  to  be  wholly  inapplicable  to  the  purpose  for 
which  it  is  alleged. 

We  are  called  upon  by  the  advocates  for  the 
doctrine  of  depravity  to  show,  that  it  is  inconsistent 
with  the  moral  perfection  of  God  ;  that  it  is  not 
taught  in  the  scriptures  ;  and  that  all  the  wickedness 
in  the  world  may  be  accounted  for  without  admitting 
the  doctrine. 

With  respect  to  the  first,  I  might  satisfy  myself 
with  saying,  that  it  belongs  to  those^  who  maintain 


48 

the  doctrine^  to  prove  its  consistency  with  the  moral 
perfection  of  God.  But  I  have  no  wish  to  avail 
myself  of  the  rights  which  every  one  has,  who  is 
called  upon  to  prove  a  negative^  of  throwing  back 
the  burden  of  proof.  It  is  one  of  the  cases  in  which 
the  negative  is  susceptible  of  satisfactory  proof. 

When  we  charge  the  common  doctrine  of  de- 
pravity with  being  inconsistent  with  the  moral 
character  of  God,  it  is,  as  taken  in  connexion  with 
the  rest  of  the  system,  of  which  it  makes  a  part.  It 
is  the  whole  system  together,  that  we  maintain  is 
incapable  of  being  defended  in  consistency  with 
the  moral  attributes  of  the  Author  of  our  being. 
AVhatever  the  nature  of  man  be,  it  is  such  as  he 
received  at  the  hand  of  his  Maker.  Whatever 
tendency  and  proneness  to  evil  there  may  be  in  him, 
as  he  is  born  into  the  world,  it  is  no  greater  than 
his  Maker  gave  him.  We  assert  then  that  no  guilt, 
no  fault  can  be  attributed  to  him  by  his  Maker  for 
such  proneness.  If  God  be  a  just  being,  he  cannot 
be  displeased  with  him  for  being  what  he  made  him. 
If  he  be  a  good  being,  he  cannot  punish  him  for  it. 
To  subject  him  to  penal  evils  for  a  propensity  to  sin, 
born  with  him  in  consequence  of  his  descent  from  a 
sinful  ancestor,  is  not  the  less  cruel  and  unjust  for 
his  being  voluntary  in  following  that  propensity, 
unless  he  had  also  the  natural  or  communicated 
power  to  resist  it.  If  he  have  that  power,  then  he 
becomes  guilty  and  deserving  of  punishment,  so  soon 
as  in  the  indulgence  of  the  propensity  he  actually 
becomes  a  sinner,  but  no  sooner.  Till  then,  even 
on  the  supposition  above,  no  guilt  is  incurred.  The 


49 

propensity  itself  is  no  sin,  and  implies  no  guilt. 
And  afterward  the  justice  of  his  subjection  to  penal 
evils  depends  on  his  power  of  being  and  acting 
■otherwise  than  he  does.  Had  he  no  power  to  be, 
to  feel,  and  to  act  otherwise  than  he  does,  he  could 
not  be  guilty  and  deserving  of  punishment  for  con- 
tinuing in  his  present  state.  But  according  to  the 
scheme,  which  assumes  to  be  that  of  Orthodoxy, 
those  who  are  the  subjects  of  this  innate  moral 
depravity,  inclination  to  evil,  and  wholly  "  wrong 
state  of  the  moral  affections  and  actions,"  (p.  31) 
are  utterly  incapable  of  doing  any  thing  toward 
producing  in  themselves  a  moral  change,  or  which 
shall  be  a  reason  with  God  for  granting  to  them  that 
grace,  which  is  necessary  to  their  regeneration 
and  sanctification.  It  is  only  the  irresistible  influ- 
ence of  the  spirit  of  God,  which  can  renew  and 
change  their  nature.  Now  we  assert,  that  until 
this  grace  has  been  imparted  and  resisted,  there 
can  be  no  blame-worthiness.  Beings  so  situated 
may  be  the  objects  of  pity  to  the  Author  of  their 
being,  and  his  pity  may  be  manifested  in  bringing 
suffering  upon  them  in  the  way  of  discipline,  for 
the  purpose  of  promoting  their  renovation,  and 
bringing  them  to  a  state  of  holiness  :  but  it  cannot  be 
inflicted  by  a  just  being  as  punishment.  Now,  if  I 
rightly  understand  the  scheme  of  Calvinism,  divine 
punishments  are  not,  according  to  that  scheme, 
disciplinary,  but  vindictive.  God  punishes  his 
offending  creatures,  not  to  reform  them,  but  to 
vindicate  his  authority.  The  sufferings  of  the 
wicked  have  no  tendency  to  reform,  but  rather  to 


50 

harden  and  confirm  them  in  their  opposition  to  God 
and  their  duty. 

Now,  however  consistent  with  justice  may  be 
the  infliction  of  vindictive  punishment,  where  it  is 
in  the  power  of  the  subject  of  it  to  be  different  from 
what  he  is,  and  to  act  otherwise  than  he  does  ;  it  is 
contended  that  it  cannot  be  so,  where  the  guilt  to 
be  punished  is  inbred,  a  part  of  man's  original  na- 
ture, such  as  he  came  from  the  Creator's  hands  ; 
where,  in  fact,  the  sinner  is  as  his  Maker  sent  him 
into  the  world,  not  as  he  has  made  himself  by  his 
own  act,  by  the  abuse,  or  neglect,  or  perversion  of 
his  power,  and  his  faculties  and  affections. 

That  the  doctrine  is  not  contained  in  the  scrip- 
tures I  have  endeavoured  to  show,  by  showing  the 
insufficiency  of  the  several  texts  from  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  on  which  Dr.  Woods  relies  for  its 
support ;  and  that  they  admit  of  a  satisfactory  in- 
terpretation, which  gives  no  countenance  to  it.  I 
know  very  well,  that  these  are  not  the  only  texts 
which  are  supposed  to  relate  to  the  subject ;  but  I 
do  not  know  that  any  others  are  thought  to  have 
more  weight,  or  to  present  greater  difficulties.  I 
have  limited  myself  to  these,  solely  from  a  wish  not 
to  extend  the  discussion  beyond  what  was  rendered 
necessary,  by  the  course  pursued  by  Dr.  Woods  ; 
and  presuming  that  the  texts,  which  he  has  selected, 
were  those  on  which  he  would  place  his  chief  reli- 
ance. 

When  the  extent  and  prevalence  of  wickedness 
in  the  w^orld  are  urged  as  indicating  an  original  in- 
herent corruption,  and  we  are  called   upon   to  ac- 


51 

count  for  it  in  a  satisfactory  manner,  without  ad- 
mitting the  orthodox  doctrine  of  depravity,  I  shall 
think  it  sufficient  to  refer  you  to  the  account  which 
I  have  given  of  our  moral  constitution,  and  the 
state  of  trial  in  which  we  are  placed.  Being,  by 
the  whole  of  our  nature  and  condition,  equally 
capable  of  virtue  and  of  vice,  of  a  right  and  of  a 
wrong  course ;  it  is  no  more  difficult  to  account  for 
the  actual  existence  of  the  highest,  than  of  the  lowest 
degree  of  either.  But  I  have  also  another  consid- 
eration to  suggest.  It  will  not,  I  suppose,  be  pre- 
tended, that  our  first  parents  were,  previous  to 
their  fall,  subjects  of  the  same  moral  depravity, 
which  is  attributed  to  their  descendants.  It  will 
be  admitted  that  they  were  created  innocent  and 
pure,  ^^  in  the  image  of  God  in  righteousness  and 
holiness  ;  yet  they  became  sinners.  Now  it  belongs 
to  him,  who  urges  the  wickedness  of  mankind  as  a 
proof  of  innate  original  depravity,  to  account  for 
the  sin  of  our  first  parents,  who  are  admitted  to 
have  been  created,  not  only  in  a  state  of  innocence, 
but  of  positive  holiness. 

I  have  one  only  remark  more,  which  I  wish  to 
make  in  conclusion  upon  this  subject.  The  doctrine, 
which  I  have  been  considering  in  this  letter,  Dr. 
Woods  styles,  (p.  31)  his  "  humbling  conclusion.'^ 
In  this  he  intimates,  what  is  often  more  distinctly 
expressed  by  orthodox  writers,  that  the  doctrine  is 
of  a  more  humbling  nature,  more  expressive  of  self- 
abasement,  and  of  a  sense  of  human  demerit  and 
unworthiness,  than  that  which  declares  our  nature 
to  be  originally  pure,  innocent,  free  from  enmity  to 


52 

God,  and  from  an  inclination  only  to  evil.  But 
with  how  little  justice  this  is  claimed,  I  am  persuad- 
ed you  will  be  convinced,  by  a  moment's  reflection. 
Can  that  be  thought  a  more  humbling  doctrine, 
which  traces  all  our  wicked  actions  up  to  an  original 
constitution,  given  us  at  first  by  our  Maker,  and  a 
depravity  of  nature  which  he  gave  us  when  he  gave 
us  being  ;  than  that  which  attributes  all  our  sins  to 
our  own  neglect,  and  abuse,  and  perversion  of  the 
gifts  of  God  ?  We  have  certainly  no  cause  to  feel 
ourselves  humbled  under  a  sense  of  any  thing  that 
we  are  by  nature.  We  have  occasion  to  be  ashamed 
only  of  what  we  have  become  by  practice.  For  the 
nature  God  has  given  us  no  sentiment  but  that  of 
gratitude  is  due.  Humility  and  self-condemnation 
should  spring  only  from  the  consciousness  of  a 
course  of  life  not  answering  to  the  powers,  and  fac- 
ulties, and  privileges  of  our  nature.  What  God 
has  made  us,  we  should  think  of  with  unmingkd 
satisfaction  ;  what  we  have  made  ourselves,  we 
cannot  think  of  with  too  deep  regret,  and  sorrow, 
and  shame. 


53 


LETTER  IV. 


In  the  system  of  Orthodoxy  defended  by  Dr. 
Woods,  the  doctrine  of  Election  stands  in  immediate 
and  close  connexion  with  that  of  the  total  depravity 
of  human  nature,  and  is   brought  forward  by  him 
the  next   in  order.     He   seems   to  enter  upon  the 
discussion  of  this  subject  with  the  impression,  that 
he  has  strong  prepossessions  to  encounter,  and  that 
these  prepossessions  are  not   without  foundation. 
"  I  acknowledge,^'  he  says  (p.  52)   "  that  orthodox 
writers  and  preachers  of  high  repute,  but  deficient 
in  judgment,  have,  in  some  instances,  exhibited  the 
doctrine  in  a  manner,  which  has  given  too    much  * 
occasion   for   these   prepossessions ;  and   too  much 
occasion  for   this  author  [Mr.  Channing]  to  think, 
that  the   doctrine   is   inconsistent  with  the   moral 
perfection   of  God."      Again,   (p.  63)    '^  orthodox 
writers  have  not  unfrequently  made  use  of  expres- 
sions, which,   at   first   view,   may  seem  to    furnish 
occasion  for  some   of  the   heavy  charges    brought 
against   us   by  our   opposers.      But  for  the   rash, 
unqualified  expressions  of  men,   who  have  become 
hot  and   violent  by  controversy,  we   are  not  to  be 
held  responsible.     We  here   enter  our  solemn  pro- 
test against  the  language,  which  has  sometimes  been 
employed,  and  the  conceptions  which   have  some- 
times been  entertained  on  this  subject  by  men,  who 
have  been  denominated  Calvinists."    Again,  (p.  79) 
''  I  am  willing  to  concede,  that  those  viexvs  of  the 
doctrine  of  Election,   against   which   Whitby  and 
7 


54 

many  other  respectable  writers  direct  their  princi- 
pal arguments^  ^.re  justly  liable  to  objection.^'    From 
these  passages  one  might   be   led   to  suppose,  that 
those,  whose  opinions  Dr.  Woods  professes  to  rep- 
resent, maintain  the  doctrine  of  Election  in  some 
qualified  sense,  and  not  as  it  is  to  be  found  in  the 
popular  writers,  and  confessions.     And  in  this  he 
would  be  confirmed  by  the  statement  at  the  close  of 
the  discussion,  (p.  81)  "  You  now  see  what  we  mean 
by  the  doctrine  of  Election,  and  in  what  manner  we 
believe  it.     ^s  the  result  of  his  own  unsearchable 
wisdom  and  grace,  and  for  reasons  which  relate  to  the 
great  e?ids  of  his  administration,  God  eter?ially  pur- 
posed to  save  a  great  number  of  our  race,  and  pur- 
posed to  save  them  precisely  in  the  ma?iner  in  which 
he  actually  does  save  thcmP    From  this  form  of  the 
doctrine,  I   presume  no  Unitarian  would   dissent; 
and  were  there  nothing  in  the  Letters  of  Dr.  Woods 
to  show  that  the  orthodox  faith   is   something  more 
than  is  here  expressed,   one  would   have  supposed 
he  might  have  been  spared  the  labour  of  any  formal 
defence  of  it  against  objection,  and  all  that  solicitude 
which  he  seems  to  have  felt,   ^'  in  disclosing  to  his 
readers   with    the    utmost    frankness    his    inmost 
thoughts  upon  the  subject."  (p.  82.) 

If  this  is  a  complete  statement  of  the  doctrine  of 
Election,  as  it  is  understood  by  the  Orthodox,  and 
if  Dr.  Woods  and  those  whom  he  represents,  and 
for  whom  he  professes  to  speak,  do  not  maintain  the 
opinions  against  which  the  Sermon  of  Mr.  C ban- 
ning is  directed,  there  seems  to  have  been  no  good 
reason,  why  he  should  feel  himself  concerned  at  all 


55 

ill  the  charge.  Calvinists  only,  who  do  maintain 
them,  can  fairly  consider  their  opinions  as  attacked, 
and  themselves  called  upon  to  defend  them. 

But  Dr.  Woods  has  no  where  informed  us,  who 
those  "  orthodox  writers  of  high  repute"  are,  who 
have  exposed  the  doctrine  to  objection  by  their 
injudicious  exhibitions  of  it ;  nor  has  he  told  us  in 
what  respects  they  have  given  a  false  representa- 
tion of  it.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  he  did  not  think 
it  necessary  to  do  this,  as  he  must  perceive  how 
much  it  is  calculated  to  perplex,  and  how  much  it 
may  mislead,  his  readers.  For,  as  a  simple  state- 
ment drawn  from  the  several  parts  of  his  letters  will 
show,  it  cannot  have  been  his  design  to  express  his 
dissent  from  the  doctrine  of  Election  as  expressed 
in  the  strongest  language  of  orthodox  writers  ;  but 
only  to  guard  against  the  impression,  which  he 
supposes  the  strong  and  naked  statement  of  it  may 
be  likely  to  make. 

The  following  is  the  statement  of  this  doctrine 
by  the  Westminster  Divines,  as  it  stands  in  their 
Confession  of  Faith,  and  more  briefly  in  the  As- 
sembly's Catechism. 

'^  God  did  from  all  eternity  freely  and  un- 
changeably ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass.'' 

'^  By  the  decree  of  God  some  men  and  angels 
are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others 
fore-ordained  to  everlasting  death." 

^^  These  angels  and  men,  thus  predestinated  and 
fore- ordained,  are  particularly  and  unchangeably 
designed,  and  their  number  so  certain  and  definite, 
that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  diminished.'' 


56 

^^  Those  of  mankind  that  are  predestinated  unto 
life,  God,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  was 
laid,  according  to  his  eternal  and  immutable  pur- 
pose, and  the  secret  counsel  and  good  pleasure  of 
his  will,  hath  chosen  in  Christ  unto  everlasting 
glory,  out  of  his  mere  free  grace  and  love,  without 
any  foresight  of  faith  or  good  works,  or  persever- 
ance in  either  of  them,  or  any  other  thing,  in  the 
Creature,  as  conditions  or  causes,  moving  him  there- 
unto." 

"  As  God  hath  appointed  the  elect  unto  glory, 
so  hath  he,  by  the  eternal  and  most  free  purpose 
of  his  will,  fore-ordained  all  the  means  thereunto. 
Wherefore,  they  who  are  elected,  being  fallen  in 
Adam,  are  redeemed  by  Christ,  are  effectually 
called  unto  faith  in  Christ,  &c.  Neither  are  any 
other  redeemed  by  Christ,  effectually  called,  &.c. 
but  the  elect  only." 

*^*  The  rest  of  mankind  God  was  pleased,  ac- 
cording to  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own  will, 
whereby  he  extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy,  as  he 
pleaseth,  to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain  them  to  dishonour 
and  wrath  for  their  sin." 

I  will  now  place  before  you,  in  the  best  manner 
I  am  able,  such  a  view  of  Dr.  Woods'  opinions  upon 
the  subject,  as  is  to  be  found  in  scattered  passages 
through  his  seventh  and  eighth  letters. 

*^  The  Father  has  given  to  Christ  a  part  of  the 
human  race,  and  those,  who  have  thus  been  given 
to  Christ,  are  the  persons,  who  shall  have  eternal 
life  ;"  (p.  54)  and  this,  he  goes  on  to  prove  at  large, 
^^  denotes   all  who  shall  finally  he  savedP  (p.  bb.) 


57 

"  In  every  case,  a  person's  being  given  to 
Christ  secures  his  coming  to  Christ  ;  and,  when 
Christ  speaks  of  those,  who  were  given  him  of  the 
Father,  he  includes  the  whole  number  that  shall  be 
saved."  (p.  56.) 

^'  God  has  a  purpose,  choice,  xvill,  and  good 
pleasure,  respecting  those  who  are  saved  ;  a  purpose 
or  choice,  which  was  in  the  mind  of  God  before  they 
existed  ;  a  purpose,  which  does  not  rest  upon  any 
personal  merit  in  those,  who  are  its  objects ;  of 
grace,  excluding  all  works  of  righteousness  from 
having  any  concern  in  this  subject."  (p.  57.) 

''  Nothing  is  effected  by  the  efforts  of  man,  but 
every  thing  depends  on  the  mercy  of  God."  (p.  59.) 

"  The  sovereign  purpose  of  God  relates  to 
man's  eternal  interests,  to  their  religious  character 

and  salvation." ^*^  I  could,    as   I  think,   make  it 

appear,  that  the  doctrine  of  God's  sovereign  Election 
is  the  only  doctrine,  which  accounts  satisfactorily  for 
the  actual  difference,  rvhich  exists  between  true 
believers,  and  the  rest  of  the  xvorldP  (pp.  61,  62.) 

"  We  hold  it  as  a  fact,  universally,  that  impeni- 
tent, unrenewed  sinners  do  no  good  work,  which 
God  regards  as  a  condition  of  their  being  renewed, 
or  on  account  of  which  he  has  promised  them  re- 
generation :  that,  in  all  cases,  he  calls  and  renews 
them  according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace." 
(pp.  67,  68.) 

"  We  believe  that  those,  who  are  chosen  of  God 
to  salvation,  are  not  chosen  because  they  were,  in 
themselves,   more   worthy  of    this    blessing    than 


58 

others,  that  God  looked  upon  their  moral  feelings 
and  conduct  with  the  same  disapprobation,  and  had 
the  same  view  of  their  ill  desert,  and  that  he  chose 
them,  as  we  may  say,  for  reasons  of  state  ;  for  gen- 
eral reasons  in  his  government,  which  he  has  not 
revealed.".../' The  purpose  and  administration  of 
God  are,  in  this  respect,  different  from  what  our 
wisdom  would  dictate,  or  our  affections  choose ; 
they  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  any  principles 
known  to  us,  but  result  from  the  infinite  perfection 
of  God,  and  are  conformed  to  reasons,  which  he  has 
concealed  in  his  own  mind."  (p.  74.) 

If  you  will  compare  these  passages  with  those 
before  quoted  from  the  Westminster  Confession, 
you  will  find  that  they  differ  from  each  other  only  in 
the  degree  of  clearness  and  explicitness,  with  which 
the  same  doctrine  is  expressed. 

I  shall  now  endeavour  to  show,  that  the  '^  method 
of  designating  the  heirs  of  salvation,"  which  this 
doctrine  implies,  can  neither  be  reconciled  with  our 
natural  notions  of  the  moral  character  of  God,  de- 
rived from  the  use  of  the  faculties  he  has  given  us, 
and  our  observation  of  his  conduct  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  world ;  nor  with  what  he  has  made 
known  to  us  of  his  character,  and  purposes,  and 
government  in  the  christian  revelation. 

How  repugnant  this  doctrine  is  to  our  natural 
reason.  Dr.  Woods  himself  seems  to  be  fully  sensi- 
ble. ''  If  it  were  put  to  my  natural  reason,"  he 
says,  (p.  54)  "  to  judge  by  its  own  light  respecting 
what  is  called  the  doctrine  of  Election,  my  judgment 


59 

might  agree  with  the  judgment  of  those,  who  reject 
the  doctrine.  If  the  question  were,  what  difficulties 
attend  the  doctrine,  I  might  perhaps  bring  forward 
as  many  as  others/' 

Now,  as  God  is  the  Author  of  our  being,  and  as 
that  portion  of  reason,  which  we  have,  was  given  us 
by  him  for  our  guide,  it  is  certainly  very  remarka- 
ble, and  what  we  should  not  expect,  that  instead  of 
indicating  to  us  truly  his  character,  and  dispositions, 
and  purposes,  so  far  as  it  gives  us  any  information, 
it  should  universally  mislead  us  respecting  them. 
Following  the  light  of  our  reason,  and  the  natural 
impulse  of  our  feelings,  we  find  it  impossible  to 
imagine,  that  the  Author  of  our  being,  the  common 
Parent  of  all,  can  regard  and  treat  his  offspring  in 
the  manner,  which  the  doctrine  in  question  attrib- 
utes to  him.  That,  without  any  foreseen  difference 
of  character  and  desert  in  men,  before  he  had 
brought  them  into  being,  he  should  regard  some 
with  complacency  and  love,  and  the  rest  with  dis- 
approbation, and  hatred,  and  wrath  ;  and,  without 
any  reference  to  the  future  use  or  abuse  of  their 
nature,  should  appoint  some  to  everlasting  happi- 
ness, and  the  rest  to  everlasting  misery ;  and  that 
this  appointment,  entirely  arbitrary,  for  which  no 
reason  is  to  be  assigned,  but  his  sovereign  will, 
should  be  the  cause  and  not  the  consequence  of  the 
holiness  of  the  one,  and  of  the  defect  of  holiness  of 
the  other.  A  man,  who  should  do  what  this  doctrine 
attributes  to  God,  I  will  not  say  toward  his  own  ofT- 
spring,  but  toward  any  beings  that  were  dependent 


-50 

on  him,  and  whose  destiny  was  at  his  disposal, 
would  be  regarded  as  a  monster  of  malevolence, 
and  cruelty,  and  caprice.  It  is  incredible  that  the 
Author  of  our  being  should  thus  have  formed  us 
with  an  understanding  and  moral  feelings  to  lead  us 
without  fail  to  condemn  the  measures  and  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  government  of  him,  who  so  made  us. 
Will  it  be  said  that  this  repugnance  which  we 
feel  to  the  doctrine  in  question  is  one  of  the  proofs 
of  the  corruption  of  our  nature  ?  Yet  whatever  that 
nature  may  be,  it  is  such  as  he  gave  us.  And  how- 
ever imperfect  our  reason,  it  is  what  he  gave  to  be 
our  guide.  It  is  the  only  immediate  guide  he  has 
given  us  ;  and  it  is  that,  which  must  be  the  ultimate 
judge  of  the  evidence,  and  of  the  nature  and  value, 
of  any  notices  which  he  may  give  of  his  will  and 
purposes,  by  his  providence  or  his  word.  Can  it 
have  been  the  design  of  the  Apostle  to  put  down 
our  reason,  our  moral  feelings,  and  natural  con- 
science, as  seems  to  be  intimated  in  the  pamphlet, 
"  by  the  appalling  rebuke,  Who  art  thou  that  re- 
pliest  against  God  ?''  But  who  is  the  man,  that  in 
the  truest  sense  is  chargeable  with  replying  against 
God  ?  Is  it  not  he,  who  would  set  aside,  as  false 
and  dangerous,  the  guide  he  has  given  to  all  for 
the  direction  of  life  ?  Is  it  not  he,  who  refuses  to 
listen  to  the  voice,  by  which  he  speaks  to  all  ? 
Who  calls  in  question  the  notices  he  gives  of  him- 
self and  of  the  principles  of  his  government,  in  the 
only  universal  revelation  that  he  has  made  of  him- 
self?    He,  it  seems  to  me,  replies  against  God,  who 


61 

rejects  or  undervalues  the  notices,  which  he  has 
in  any  way  given  us,  of  himself  or  of  the  principles 
of  his  government.  Not  less  he,  who  refuses  to 
follow  reason  and  natural  conscience,  than  he,  who 
will  not  submit  to  the  demands  of  a  written  revela- 
tion. Not  less  he,  who  turns  his  back  upon  the 
works  of  God,  than  he,  who  closes  his  eyes  against 
his  written  word. 

But  my  objection   to   the  orthodox  doctrine  of 
Election  is  grounded  not  solely  on  its  being  irrecon- 
cileable  with  our  reason  and  moral  feelings  ;  I  find 
it  not  more  easy  to  reconcile  it  with  the  instructions 
of  the  holy  scriptures.     I  look  to  the  general  scope 
of  the  sacred  writings,  as  regards  the  disposition  of 
the  Author  of  nature  toward  his  creatures,  and  the 
principles  of  his  government ;  and  I  find  nothing  to 
support  this  doctrine,  but  much  with  which  it  seems 
to  be  wholly  incompatible.  I  ask  how  this  sovereign 
appointment    of  the  everlasting  condition  of  men, 
^^  excluding  all  works  of  righteousness,  as   having 
any  concern  in  it,''   and  with   reference   to  which 
"  nothing  is   effected  by  the  efforts  of  men,"  can  be 
shown  to  consist  with  all   that  we  find  in  the  scrip- 
tures so  clearly  implying,  that  something  is  depend- 
ing on  the  exertions  men  will  make,  and  the   part 
they  will  act ;  for,  according  to  this  doctrine,  what 
they  are  to  be  and  how  they  are  to  act  is  determin- 
ed beforehand,  without  any  reference  to   such  ex- 
ertions ;    with    all   that  implies    the   influence    oi 
motives,  since  it  is  no  such  influence  of  motive,  but 
^'  God's  sovereign  election,  that  is  to  account  for  the 
actual  difference   between  true   believers,  and   the 
8 


62 

rest  of  the  world ;"  with  all  that  implies  guilt,  ill 
desert,  blame-worthiness  in  the  unholy,  disobedient, 
and  impenitent ;  for  how  can  men  be  guilty  of  being 
what  they  were  made  to  be  ?  How  are  they  de- 
serving of  blame  for  remaining  in  that  moral  state, 
in  which  it  was  determined  by  the  sovereign  ap- 
pointment of  God,  that  they  should  remain  ?  With 
all  those  promises,  threatenings,  warnings,  admoni- 
tions, exhortations,  and  entreaties,  which  imply  in 
those,  to  whom  they  are  addressed,  a  power  of  being 
influenced ;  with  all  that  implies,  that  men  are 
capable  of  duty  and  obligation,  and  are  the  proper 
subjects  of  praise  and  blame,  and  of  reward  and 
punishment  ? 

This  charge  of  inconsistency  with  the  general 
scope  of  the  scriptures,  and  the  doctrine  every 
where  taught  or  implied  in  the  sacred  writings,  has 
never  been  removed  ;  nor  can  it  be,  I  am  persuaded, 
but  by  violating  the  plainest  principles  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  language. 

There  is  another  view,  in  which  this  doctrine  is 
at  variance  with  what  the  scriptures  every  where 
present  to  us.  I  mean  the  righteous  and  benevolent 
character  of  the  Author  of  our  being.  It  represents 
him  to  us  as  a  cruel  and  unjust  being,  exacting 
endless  punishment  for  sins  committed  in  following 
the  nature  he  had  given,  and  acting  in  pursuance  of 
his  decree.  It  represents  him,  as  arbitrary  and 
partial  in  his  distributions  ;  making  a  distinction 
the  most  momentous  that  can  be  imagined  in  his 
treatment  of  those,  between  whom  there  was  no  dif- 
ference of  character  or  of  desert  as  the  ground  of  the 


63 

distinction  ;  from  his  mere  sovereign  will  and  good 
pleasure,  ordaining  these  to  eternal  blessedness  and 
glory,  and  appointing  those  to  endless  and  hopeless 
misery.  That  it  is  the  righteous  only,  who  will  thus 
be  raised  to  glory,  and  the  wicked  only,  who  will  be 
the  subjects  of  condemnation,  will  make  no  difference 
in  the  case  ;  since,  according  to  the  doctrine  we  are 
considering,  it  is  not  merely  an  absolute  appointment 
to  salvation  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  condemnation 
on  the  other  ;  but  also  to  the  different  dispositions, 
character,  and  course  of  life,  which  are  to  have 
these  opposite  results.  Those,  and  those  only,  who 
are  ordained  to  eternal  life,  are  also  ordained  to  be 
effectually  called,  to  be  regenerated  by  irresistible 
grace,  and  thus  to  be  brought,  not  by  any  thing 
they  do,  or  can  do  themselves,  but  solely  by  the 
immediate  power  of  God,  out  of  that  state  of  sin,  in 
which  they  are  by  nature,  to  that  holiness,  which  is 
to  qualify  them  for  salvation.  The  rest  of  mankind, 
^^  passed  by,  and  ordained  to  dishonour  and  wrath 
for  their  sins,"  have  that  effectual  and  irresistible 
grace  withheld  from  them,  which  was  necessary  to 
their  regeneration,  and  without  which  it  was  impos- 
sible for  them  to  attain  to  holiness  and  salvation. 
To  say,  that  those  who  are  appointed  to  salva- 
tion, are  chosen  from  among  mankind  ^^for  reasons 
of  state, ^^  (p.  74)  is  to  say  nothing  that  is  intelligi- 
ble. But  to  say,  that  they  are  chosen  (ib.)  "for 
reasons,  which  God  has  not  revealed  ; — reasons, 
which  he  has  concealed  in  his  own  mind ;  such  as 
cannot  be  accounted  for  by  any  principle  known  to 
us,"  is  something  more. 


64 

It  is  a  position,  I  think,  unsupported  by  proof, 
and  confuted  distinctly  by  what  we  constantly  meet 
with  in  the   New  Testament.     In  the  appointment 
to  privileges,  means,  and   external  condition,   God 
has  indeed  given  no  account  of  his  motives  ;  nor 
assigned   his  reasons   for  the   infinite  variety  that 
appears.  He  has  exercised  an  absolute  sovereignty, 
of  which    no   account  is   given,  and  the  reasons  of 
which  we  are  not  competent  to  understand.     But  it 
is  clearly  otherwise  as  to  the  final  condition  of  men. 
So  far   is   that  from  being  determined  by  7'easons  of 
state  J  which  he  has  not  revealed,   that   the   reasons, 
upon  which  the  final  salvation  or  condemnation  of 
every  man  is  to  take  place,  are  distinctly  assigned 
by  our  Saviour  and  his  Apostles  ;  not  once  only,  but 
as  often  as  they  have  occasion  to  speak  of  the  final 
distinctions    that   are   to   be  made   between   men. 
Those  distinctions,  we  are  again  and  again  told,  are 
to    be  wholly  according  to   the  difference  of  moral 
character.     It  is  that  these  are  righteous,  and  those 
wicked  ;  these  have  done  well,  and  those  have  done 
ill ;  these  have  been  faithful,  and   those   unfaithful. 
So  far  are  the  reasons  of  the  final  distinction  to  be 
made  between  those  who  are  saved,  and  those  who 
perish,  from  being  concealed  in  the  divine  mind, 
that  nothing  is  more  distinctly  made  known.     The 
New  Testament  is  full  of  it. 

Nor  is  it  with  any  better  reason  said,  that,  *'  in 
this  respect,  the  purpose  and  administration  of  God 
are  different  from  what  our  wisdom  would  dictate, 
or  our  affections  choose.*'  They  are  precisely  what 
the  wisdom  and  the  affections  of  every  man  in  their 


65 

uncorrupted,  imperverted  state,  would  approve  and 
concur  in.  And  they  are  accounted  for  by  principles 
well  known  to  us  ;  principles  of  eternal  and  immuta- 
ble justice.  Not  reasons  which  he  has  concealed 
in  his  own  mind,  but  such  as  he  has  made  us  per- 
fectly capable  of  understanding  ;  and  such  as  he  has 
clearly  revealed  to  us  in  his  word. 

But,  though  the  general  tenor  of  scripture  seems 
so  foreign  from  the  doctrine  we  are  considering,  and 
not  easily  reconciled  with  it,  there  are  particular 
texts  in  which  it  is  thought  to  be  expressly  tauglit, 
or  so  clearly  implied,  that  their  force  cannot  be 
evaded. 

The  first  text  alleged  by  Professor  Woods,  in  the 
pamphlet  before  me,  is  (John  xvii.  2)  ''  That  he 
should  give  eternal  life  to  as  many  as  thou  hast 
given  him,"  and  (John  vi.  37,  39)  "  All  that  the 
Father  giveth  me  shall  come  to  me,  and  him  that 
Cometh  to  me  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out.  And  this 
is  the  Father's  will,  who  sent  me,  that  of  all  which 
he  hath  given  me,  I  should  lose  nothing,  but  should 
raise  it  up  at  the  last  day." 

With  respect  to  the  first  of  these,  it  cannot  have 
been  our  Saviour's  intention  to  declare,  that  a  cer- 
tain, definite  number  of  mankind  were  appointed  by 
the  Father  to  receive  the  benefit  of  his  mediation 
and  sacrifice,  and  obtain  salvation,  exclusive  of  all 
others ;  and  without  any  thing  in  them,  as  the 
ground  of  this  preference  and  choice,  for  the  reasons 
that  follow. 

In  the  discourse  with  his  disciples,  (ch.  xv.) 
which   stands   in   immediate   connexion    with   the 


66 

prayer,  of  which  this  text  is  a  part,  he  addresses 
the  same  persons,  of  whom  he  here  speaks  as 
''  given  him  of  the  Father,"  in  language  implying, 
that  they  might  '^  abide  in  him,  and  bring  forth 
much  fruit,"  or,  failing  to  abide  in  him,  might  be 
^^  taken  away,  cast  forth,  cast  into  the  fire  and 
burned."  As  those  who,  though  chosen  and  or- 
dained, might  or  might  not  keep  the  commands, 
and  abide  in  the  love  of  him,  who  had  thus  chosen 
and  ordained  tliem.  But,  according  to  the  doctrine 
in  question,  there  could  be  no  such  contingency  in 
the  case.  All  who  are  thus  given,  chosen,  ordained, 
and  those  only,  are  to  bring  forth  fruit,  to  keep  his 
commands,  to  abide  in  his  love,  to  have  eternal  life. 
In  this  same  discourse,  again,  (ch.  xvi.  27)  we 
meet  with  the  following  sentence.  ''  For  the  Father 
himself  loveth  you,  because  ye  have  loved  me,  and 
have  believed  that  I  came  out  from  God."  Here 
the  love  of  God  is  represented,  not  as  the  cause,  but 
the  consequence,  of  the  faith  and  love  of  the  disci- 
ples, and  the  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of  the 
texts  in  question,  in  their  connexion  with  this  is, 
that  they  were  given  to  Christ,  not  by  an  arbitrary 
selection  of  them  from  the  mass  of  Jews,  without 
any  thing  in  their  character  and  disposition  leading 
to  the  choice  ;  but,  because  they  were  seen  to  be 
fit  subjects  for  the  kingdom  of  God,  ready  to  receive 
the  faith  of  the  Gospel  when  offered  to  them,  hav- 
ing already  something  of  the  christian  disposition 
and  character,  already  manifesting  an  obedient 
temper,  as  expressed  (ch.  xvii.  6,)  they  were  already 
children  of  God,  and  were  given  to   Christ,  and 


67 

eame  to  him,  because  they  were  God's  in  a  sense, 
in  which  the  rest  of  the  world  were  not ;  and  were 
then  chosen,  and  ordained  to  partake  in  the  final 
benefits  of  the  Gospel,  because  of  their  faith  and 
fidelity.  This  interpretation  renders  the  whole 
discourse,  and  the  following  prayer,  consistent 
throughout  in  the  several  parts,  and  consistent  with 
the  moral  character  of  God,  and  the  moral  state  of 
man,  as  a  free  and  accountable  being.  With  the 
other  interpretation,  I  do  not  perceive  how  the  texts 
that  have  been  mentioned  can  be  fairly  reconciled. 
If,  by  those  given  to  Christ,  we  are  to  understand, 
as  Dr.  Woods  asserts,  (p.  54)  "  a  certain  part  of 
the  human  race,  who  are  to  have  eternal  life,  and 
those,  denoting  all,  to  whom  Christ  will  actually 
give  eternal  life,"  and  as  his  argument  requires, 
and  as  he  elsewhere  states  with  sufficient  distinct- 
ness, this  choice  and  appointment  to  Christian  faith, 
obedience,  and  eternal  life,  is  wholly  independent 
of  any  thing  in  them  as  the  ground  of  this  distinc- 
tion from  the  rest  of  the  world,  it  is  impossible  to 
see  with  what  propriety  it  could  be  said,  that 
"  God  loved  them,  because  of  their  faith  and  love 
to  Christ,"  for  his  distinguishing  love  was,  by  that 
supposition,  the  cause  of  their  faith,  &.C.;  or  how 
any  intimations  could  be  given,  that  something  was 
yet  depending  upon  themselves ;  that  it  yet  de- 
pended on  themselves,  whether  they  should  abide 
in  Christ,  keep  his  commandments,  continue  in  his 
love,  and  share  in  the  great  salvation ;  for  the  ap- 
pointment to  all  this  was  absolute,  and  without  any 
condition  on  their  part,  as  the  ground  of  it.  Besides, 


1  observe  that  other  language  of  our  Saviour  in  the 
discourses  recorded  by  this  same  Evangelist,  is 
equally  favourable  to  the  supposition,  "  that  coming 
to  Christ,  believing  on  him,  and  having  eternal 
life,  are  events,  not  flowing  from  a  sovereign  uncon- 
ditional appointment,  but  the  result  of  a  faithful 
use  of  means,  in  the  exercise  of  a  right  disposition  ; 
and  that  the  difference  of  character  thus  appearing 
between  them,  and  others  who  neglect  to  come,  who 
refuse  to  believe  and  obey,  and  fail  of  eternal  life, 
is  the  ground  and  not  the  consequence  of  their 
being  chosen,  given  to  Christ,  and  ordained  to 
eternal  life.  Thus,  (John  iii.  19)  the  ground  of 
men's  condemnation  is,  not  an  irrespective  decree 
of  God,  "  but  their  hating  the  light,  loving  the 
darkness,  because  their  deeds  are  evil."  It  is  their 
being  in  character  and  disposition  opposite  to  those, 
who  escape  the  condemnation,  because  they  do  the 
truth,  and  willingly  come  to  the  light. 

Thus  it  is,  that  the  reason  assigned,  and,  as  is 
clearly  implied,  the  criminal  I'eason  why  the  unbe- 
lieving Jews  rejected  the  Gospel  (John  v.  40)  was, 
hot  that  they  were  ordained  to  this  condemnation 
without  any  thing  in  them,  by  which  they  were  dis- 
tinguished from  those,  who  accepted  the  invitation ; 
but  because  they  wilfully  rejected  the  Gospel,  and 
refused  the  eternal  life  it  offered.  ^'  Ye  will  not 
come  unto  me,  that  ye  might  have  life."  Again, 
the  same  great  moral  ground  of  distinction  ap- 
pears in  the  declaration,  (John  vii.  17)  '*  If  any 
man  will  do  his  xvilL  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine, 
whether  it  be  of   God."     Those,  who  are  given  to 


69 

Christ,  chosen,  ordained,  who  are  to  know  of  his 
doctrine,  to  believe  in  him,  and  thus  to  obtain 
eternal  life,  are  those,  who  are  well  disposed  to  it, 
who  have  an  obedient  temper,  who  are  willing  to 
do  his  will. 

The  observations  which  have  been  applied  to 
this  text  are  equally  applicable  to  the  other  text 
under  consideration.  (John  vi.  27)  '^  All  that  the 
Father  giveth  me  shall  come  to  me  ;''  tliat  is,  those 
only  are  given  to  him  of  the  Father,  those  only  are 
to  receive  the  final  blessings  of  the  Gospel,  who 
come  to  Chi'ist.  It  was  so  when  the  Gospel  was 
first  promulgated.  The  humble,  the  pious,  the 
teachable  received  the  Gospel ;  all  those  who  were 
of  God.  The  proud,  the  irreligious  rejected  it ; 
those  who  were  not  of  God,  but  of  the  world.  It 
has  been  so  in  every  subsequent  age. 

And  none  of  those  who  thus  come,  bringing  with 
them  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  abiding  in  it,  and 
bringing  forth  the  fruits  of  righteousness,  none  of 
tliese  will  he  cast  off.  Of  all  those,  thus  given  to 
him,  thus  coming  to  him,  thus  abiding  in  him,  thus 
bringing  forth  fruit,  it  is  the  Father's  will  that  he 
should  lose  nothing. 

From  this  expression  in  the  text,  however,  as 
well  as  the  other,  an  unwarrantable  inference  is 
probably  drawn  ;  that  of  the  absolute  certainty  of 
the  final  salvation  of  all  those  persons,  concerning 
whom  it  is  spoken.  But  this  form  of  words  was 
evidently  intended  to  express,  not  the  particular 
decree,  but  the  general  purpose  of  heaven ;  not  the 
specific  effect,  which  is  without  fail  to  be  produced, 
9 


70 

but  the  object  and  design  of  the  divine  dispensa- 
tion ;  to  be  understood  with  similar  limitations  with 
those,  which  we  apply  to  the  expression,  (1  Tim.  ii. 
4)  '^  who  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved.''  Not  that 
every  human  being  will  be  actually  saved,  in  the 
sense  in  which  saved  is  here  used,  but  that  the  sal- 
vation of  all  was  the  object  and  design  ;  that  the 
offer  of  it  was  made  to  all,  an  offer  which  yet  might 
be  rejected.  Again,  (Col.  i.  23)  "  the  gospel, 
which  was  preached  to  every  creature  which  is  un- 
der heaven."  Here  the  literal  meaning  of  the  sen- 
tence is  not  the  true  meaning.  The  Gospel  had  not 
been  preached  to  every  living  creature.  But  the 
direction  of  the  Saviour  to  his  disciples  was  to  preach 
it  to  every  creature,  that  is,  to  all  men.  It  was  intend- 
ed in  general  for  all.  None  were  excepted  in  the 
commission  ;  none  were  passed  by  in  the  execution. 
As  far  as  the  design  of  the  commission  had  been 
accomplished,  it  had  been  done  agreeably  to  the 
direction  of  the  Saviour.  To  these  instances  many 
others  might  be  added  to  show,  that  expressions  of 
universal  import  are  often,  as  in  the  text  in  question, 
to  be  interpreted  only  in  a  general  sense  ;  and  that 
they  are  frequently  used  to  express,  not  an  absolute 
decree,  but  a  purpose  or  design  depending  on  con- 
tingences,  and  which  may  in  fact  be  either  univer- 
sal or  only  general.  And  that  the  example  we  are 
considering  is  clearly  of  this  kind,  and  that  it  does 
not  warrant  the  use,  that  has  been  made  of  it,  we 
have  the  farther  positive  proof  in  this  circumstance  ; 
that  notwithstanding  this  unqualified  expression,  one 
of  the  persons  given  to  Christ  had  been  lost.  "  Those 


71 

that  thou  gavest  me  I  have  kept,  and  none  of  them 
is  lost,  but  the  son  of  perdition."  The  son  of  per- 
dition, it  is  here  clearly  implied,  had  been  given  to 
Christ  in  the  sense  of  the  passage,  and  yet  had  been 
lost.  The  declaration  then,  "  It  is  the  Father's 
will  that  he  should  lose  nothing,"  is  manifestly  de- 
signed to  express,  not  a  specific  personal  decree, 
but  the  general  purpose  and  design. 

The  next  passage  quoted  by  Dr.  Woods  to  prove 
an  absolute  personal  election  to  salvation  is  Ephe- 
sians  i.  3 — 11.  "  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father," 
&c.  To  all  the  observations  made  by  Dr.  Woods 
on  this  passage,  I  give  my  entire  concurrence  ;  yet 
have  no  hesitation  in  asserting,  what  I  hope  satis-- 
factorily  to  prove,  that  it  has  no  relation  to  the  doc- 
trine, which  he  has  brought  it  to  support. 

It  refers  not  to  individuals  as  such,  but  to  the 
Christian  community.  Not  to  final  salvation,  but 
to  Christian  privileges.  In  the  first  place,  the 
Epistle  is  addressed  to  the  whole  Christian  commu- 
nity at  Ephesus,  without  any  intimation,  that  any 
expressions  in  it  are  applicable  to  some  and  not  to 
others.  The  terms  saints  and  faithful  in  Christ 
Jesus,  (ver.  1)  are  applied  alike  to  all,  and  are  evi- 
dently to  be  understood  as  terms  which  designate 
the  whole  company  of  believers,  and  external  pro- 
fessors, without  any  reference  to  the  personal  char- 
acter of  any,  as  individuals.  It  is  again,  in  the 
name  of  the  whole  Christian  community,  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  that  the  Apostle  speaks,  when  he  says, 
that  "  God  hath  blessed  us  with  all  spiritual  bless- 
ings, chosen  us  in  him  [that  is,  Christ]   before  the 


72.' 

foundation  of  the  world,  predestinated,  us  to  thtf 
adoption  of  children,  predestinated  us  according  to 
the  purpose  of  him,  who  worketh  all  things  after 
the  counsel  of  his  own  will.''  (ver.  3,  4,  5,  11) 
That  this  choice  or  predestination  was  not  that  of 
individuals  to  eternal  life,  but  of  all,  who  received 
the  christian  faith,  to  the  profession  and  privileges 
of  the  Gospel,  (besides  its  being  thus  generally  ad- 
dressed, and  in  the  name  of  Christians  at  large  and. 
universally)  appears  still  further  from  other  ex- 
pressions, addressed  in  the  same  manner.  It  is  for 
these  same  persons,  saints,  faithful,  chosen,  predes- 
tinated, that  the  Apostle  thought  it  needful  very 
devoutly  and  earnestly  to  pray  to  God,  '^  that  they 
might  be  strengthened  with  might  by  his  spirit  in 
the  inner  man,  that  Christ  might  dwell  in  their 
hearts  by  faith,  that  they  might  be  rooted  and 
grounded  in  love  ;''  very  suitable  to  be  addressed 
to  professed  believers  as  a  promiscuous  body  :  but 
such  as  we  should  hardly  expect,  if  the  persons  de- 
signated were  by  the  very  designation  understood 
to  consist  only  of  persons  certainly  chosen  to  eter- 
nal life,  and  were  already  certainly  grounded  in 
love,  were  already  strengthened  in  the  inner  man, 
had  already  Christ  dwelling  in  their  hearts  by  love. 
Further,  these  same  persons,  he  thinks  it  proper 
to  exhort,  (ch.  iv.  1)  '*  to  walk  worthy  of  the  voca- 
tion with  which  they  were  called,"  ^'to  walk  hence- 
forth, not  as  other  Gentiles  walk,"  (ver.  17)  "'but  to 
put  off,  concerning  the  former  conversation,  the  old 
man,  which  is  corrupt  according  to  the  deceitful 
lusts,  and  to  be  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  their  mind^ 


73 

and  to  put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  creat- 
ed in  righteousness  and  true  holiness,''  and  ^*  not  to 
grieve  the  holy  spirit  of  God."  (ver.  22,  23,  24, 
30.)  Implying  that  they  are  liable  to  retain  still 
their  heathen  character,  notwithstanding  their 
Christian  profession  ;  that  they  may  still  pursue 
the  former  conversation,  which,  by  their  pro- 
fession, they  have  renounced  ;  that  they  are  in 
danger  of  failing  to  put  off  the  old  man,  and  to  be, 
as  their  Christian  profession  requires,  "  renewed  in 
righteousness  and  true  holiness ;"  that  they  finally 
may,  instead  of  following  the  guidance  of  the  spirit 
of  God,  grieve  it.  Very  suitable,  therefore,  to  be 
addressed  to  the  promiscuous  body  of  professing 
Christians  ;  very  suitable  if  by  saints,  chosen,  pre- 
destinated, this  only  were  meant  ;  but  certainly  not 
so,  if  by  these  terms  were  designated  persons  chosen 
from  eternity  to  final  salvation,  and  already  saints 
and  faithful  in  the  highest  and  literal  sense  of  the 
words.  Such,  as  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  the 
world,  are  not  the  proper  subjects  of  exhortation  to 
walk  worthy  of  their  Christian  vocation ;  for  the  very 
terms  applied  to  them  imply  that  they  cannot  fail 
to  do  so  ;  being  certainly  predestinated  to  life,  they 
are  as  certainly  predestinated  to  that  character  and 
state,  to  which  life  is  promised.  They  cannot  be 
exhorted  to  be  renewed  and  to  put  on  the  new 
man  ; — for  by  the  supposition  against  which  I  am 
contending,  their  renewal  is  already  certain.  It  is 
what  they  have  no  power,  either  to  prevent,  or  to 
bring  about,  or  even  to  accelerate.  Their  renewal 
has  indeed  already  taken  place  ;  for  they  are  ad- 


74 

dressed,  not  only  as  chosen  and  predestinated,  but 
as  saints  and  Christians,  which,  according  to  the 
scheme  under  consideration,  they  were  not,  till  they 
were  renewed.  And  with  what  propriety  can  such 
he  exhorted  "^  not  to  grieve  the  holy  spirit  of 
God?" 

The  next,  and  only  other  passage,  to  which  Dr. 
Woods  has  referred  for  the  direct  proof  of  the  doc- 
trine of  sovereign  personal  election  to  eternal  life, 
is  that  contained  in  Romans  ix.  11 — 24.  A  similar 
method  of  investigation  to  that,  which  was  applied 
to  the  passage  in  Ephesians,  will  convince  you,  I 
think,  that  this  is  as  little  to  the  purpose  as  the  oth- 
er ;  and  that  it  has  no  relation  to  an  election  to 
eternal  life,  but  only  to  the  privileges  of  the  Gospel. 

This  will  appear  to  you  in  the  first  place  by  an 
attention  to  the  general  scope  and  design  of  the 
Epistle,  the  subject  of  which  was  suggested  by  the 
great  controversy  of  that  age,  respecting  the  exten- 
sion of  Christianity  to  the  Gentiles,  and  their  ad- 
mission to  its  privileges  and  hopes,  without  being 
subjected  to  the  observance  of  the  Mosaic  ritual. 
The  Apostle  combats  the  exclusive  spirit  of  his 
Jewish  brethren,  by  showing  them,  that  those  dis- 
tinctions, on  which  they  so  valued  themselves,  as 
the  chosen  people  of  God,  were  done  away  ;  that 
Gentiles  were  admitted  to  the  same  rights,  and  to 
the  opportunity  of  securing  the  final  favour  of 
Heaven  on  the  same  terms  with  them. 

The  Jews,  as  descendants  of  Abraham,  disciples 
of  Moses,  children  of  the  covenant  and  of  the  prom- 
ises, enjoyed  a  high  distinction  and  valuable  privi- 


75 

leges.  But  these  privileges  were  no  security  of 
their  final  acceptance  with  God.  They  were  disci- 
plinary and  conditional.  The  knowledge  of  the 
law  would  be  of  no  avail  to  those,  who  did  not 
faithfully  observe  it.  The  sign  of  the  covenant 
would  not  save  those,  who  should  violate  it.  The 
oracles  of  God,  which  were  committed  to  them, 
would  but  enhance  the  guilt  and  the  condemnation 
of  those,  who,  with  all  their  superior  light  and  mo- 
tives, lived  no  better  than  ignorant  heathen. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Gentiles,  without  the 
light  of  the  written  law,  and  without  the  sign  of  the 
covenant,  the  external  mark  of  being  the  people  of 
God  ;  if,  guided  by  the  light  they  had,  (Rom.  ii. 
26,  27,  29)  they  fulfilled  the  law  by  a  virtuous  life, 
thus  showing  practically  "  the  work  of  the  law 
written  in  the  heart,'*  (ver.  15)  would  secure  that 
acceptance  of  God,  of  Him,  "  with  whom  is  no 
respect  of  persons,"  (ver.  11)  and  "  who  will 
render  to  every  man  according  to  his  deeds,''  (ver. 
6)  which  the  Jew  must  lose,  who  being  "  a  Jew  out- 
wardly" only,  (ver.  28)  and  relying  on  the  letter  and 
circumcision,  was  emboldened  to  neglect  its  moral 
design,  and  to  live  as  a  heathen.  The  final  condi- 
tion of  every  individual,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile, 
was  to  depend  on  individual  personal  character, 
(ver.  5 — 10)  ^'  Indignation  and  wrath  to  every  soul 
of  man  that  doth  evil  :  glory,  honour,  and  peace  to 
every  man  that  worketh  good,  to  the  Jew,  and  also 
to  the  Gentile." 

Now  with  this  general  scope  and  design  of  the 
first  part  of  the  Epistle,  that  interpretation  of  the 


76 

ix.  ch.  which  refers  ^^  tlie  purpose  of  God,  according 
to  election/"  (ver.  11  et  seq.)  to  an  unconditional 
election  of  individuals  to  eternal  life,  seems  to  be 
wholly  irreconcileable  :  whereas,  that,  which  refers 
it  to  an  appointment,  free  and  unconditional,  to  the 
participation  of  privileges,  not  only  comports  well 
with  the  general  design  of  the  Epistle,  but  makes 
the  latter  part  of  it  a  continuation  of  the  former, 
and  a  completion  of  the  design,  that  prevails  in  the 
whole  preceding  part. 

This  appears  again  not  less  clearly,  when  we 
come  to  a  separate  examination  of  the  passage  itself. 

The  first  instance  mentioned  of  the  accomplish- 
ment of  ^^  the  purpose  of  God  according  to  election," 
is  that  of  the  appointment  of  Isaac,  and  pretermis- 
sion of  Ishmael  and  the  other  children  of  Abraham. 
But  what  purpose  of  God  was  accomplished  by  this? 
Not  the  salvation  of  Isaac,  but  the  fulfilment  of  the 
promise  to  Abraham  in  the  whole  series  of  dispensa- 
tions for  promoting  the  knowledge  of  God  and  true 
religion  in  the  world  ;  and  especially  in  raising  up 
one  from  among  his  descendants,  in  whom  '^^  all  the 
families  of  the  earth  were  to  be  blessed." 

The  next  instance  is  the  choice  of  Jacob  in 
preference  to  Esau,  a  choice  which  preceded  their 
birth,  and  could  therefore  have  no  respect  to  their 
good  or  ill  desert.  And  this,  the  whole  reasoning 
of  the  Apostle  assures  us,  is  applied,  not  to  Jacob 
personally,  but  to  the  race  descending  from  him ; 
and  not  to  them  in  their  personal  character,  but 
solely  to  their  designation,  as  a  people,  to  a  certain 
part  in  accomplishing  the  great  purposes  of  heaven. 


77 

}n  this  appointment,  the  same  free,  sovereign,  un- 
controlled will  was  exercised,  .which  is  seen  in  the 
appointment  of  all  the  other  circumstances,  which 
make  up  the  state  of  trial  of  every  human  being. 
It  is  "  the  power  of  the  potter  over  the  clay,  of  the 
same  lump  to  make  one  vessel  to  honour,  and 
another  to  dishonour."  Upon  this  interpretation 
there  is  room  for  the  appeal,  (ver.  20)  "^  shall  the 
thing  formed  say  to  him  that  formed  it,  why  hast 
thou  made  me  thus  ?"  Upon  that  interpretation, 
which  supposes  a  reference  to  the  final  lot  of  indi- 
viduals as  determined  by  a  decree  that  has  no  respect 
to  different  desert,  the  appeal  could  not  be  sustained. 

In  each  of  these  cases  we  perceive  a  peculiar 
propriety  in  the  expressions,  which  the  Apostle 
applies  by  way  of  reflection,  (ver.  16)  '^  So  then  it 
is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him  that  runneth, 
but  of  God  that  sheweth  mercy."  It  was  the  wish 
of  Abraham,  that  the  blessing  might  be  given  to  his 
eldest  son  Ishmael.  It  was  the  desire  of  Isaac,  that 
it  should  descend  with  his  eldest  son  Esau.  But 
the  will  of  neither  of  them  was  permitted  to  prevail ; 
nor  yet  the  prompt  obedience  of  Esau,  by  which  he 
hoped  to  secure  it  to  himself. 

I  am  ready  to  admit,  with  Dr.  Woods,  that  this 
reflection  of  the  Apostle  implies  a  general  principle ; 
but  it  is  a  principle  to  be  applied  to  similar  cases 
only,  not  those  that  are  dissimilar.  Now  similar 
cases  are  those,  and  those  only,  which  relate  to 
privileges,  opportunities,  blessings,  which  are  dis- 
ciplinary in  their  design,  temporal  in  their  duration, 
and  make  a  part  of  human  probation.  That  which 
10 


78 

relates  directly  to  final  salvation   is  dissimilar,  and 
the  same  principle  is  not  to  be  applied. 

The  case  of  Pharaoh  is  as  little  to  the  purpose 
as  either  of  the  others.  For  when  it  is  said,  (ver. 
17)  ^''  For  this  same  purpose  I  have  raised  thee  up, 
that  I  miglit  shew  my  power  in  thee,  and  that  my 
name  might  be  declared  throughout  all  the  earth  ;" 
whether  by  the  phrase,  raised  thee  up,  be  meant,  as 
some  suppose,  his  recovery  from  the  effects  of  the 
preceding  plague,  which  had  been  inflicted  o/z  his 
person  and  his  people  ;  or  as  others  understand  it, 
his  being  exalted  to  high  power,  and  placed  in  a 
situation  to  act  so  important  a  part ;  in  either  case, 
there  will  be  no  reference  to  his  final  personal  desti- 
ny. For  how  did  God  actually  show  his  power  in 
him,  and  make  him  the  instrument  of  his  glory  ?  It 
was  by  giving  him  the  opportunity  to  act  out  his 
character,  by  allowing  full  scope  for  displaying  the 
incorrigible  obstinacy  of  his  disposition,  and  by  then 
inflicting  upon  him  exemplary  punishment,  for  the 
instruction  and  warning  of  mankind  ;  thus  making 
him  the  instrument  of  promoting  some  of  the  best 
purposes  of  heaven,  in  the  free  and  voluntary 
exercise  of  his  power. 

I  should  have  passed  by  what  is  said  (p.  72)  on 
the  doctrine  of  Reprobation,  as  expressing  no  other 
sentiment  than  what  all  Unitarians,  as  I  believe,  hold 
on  the  subject,  but  that  I  think  it  calculated  (unin- 
tentionally I  am  persuaded,  as  respects  the  writer) 
to  mislead  the  reader,  as  to  the  opinions  of  the 
Orthodox  on  that  point.  Dr.  Woods  has  in  fact 
given  us,  not  as  he  professes  to  do,  the  doctrine  of 


79 

the  Orthodox,  as  to  the  decree  of  Reprobation  ;  but 
only  his  opinion  of  the  character  of  the  doctri?ie.  He 
says,  "  it  is  the  determination  of  God  to  punish 
disobedient  subjects yor  their  sins,  and  according  to 
their  deserts.''  Now  this,  I  observe,  is  not  a  state- 
ment of  the  orthodox  doctrine,  but  his  opinion  of 
the  character  of  that  doctrine.  What  it  belongs  to 
him  to  state  and  defend  is,  not  an  opinion  upon  the 
subject,  which  he  holds  in  common  with  all  Chris- 
tians, but  that,  by  which  the  system  he  defends  is 
distinguished  from  others.  That  opinion  I  will  now 
state  in  the  language  of  one  of  the  most  approved 
symbols  of  Calvinistic  faith ;  and  it  is  such  as  fol- 
lows very  clearly  from  his  own  statement  of  the 
counterpart  of  the  doctrine.  ^^  The  rest  of  man- 
kind," i.  e.  all  but  the  elect,  ^^  God  was  pleased, 
according  to  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own 
will,  whereby  he  extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy 
as  he  pleaseth,  for  the  glory  of  his  sovereign  power 
over  his  creatures,  to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain  them 
tp  dishonour  and  wrath  for  their  sin,  to  the  praise 
of  his  glorious  justice."  Again,  ''  Others,  not 
elected,  though  they  may  be  called  by  the  ministers 
of  the  word,  and  may  have  some  common  operations 
of  the  spirit,  yet  they  never  truly  come  to  Christ, 
and  therefore  cannot  be  saved  ;  much  less  can  men, 
not  professing  the  christian  religion,  be  saved  in 
any  other  way  whatsoever,  be  they  never  so  diligent 
to  frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature, 
and  the  law  of  that  religion,  which  they  do  profess : 
and  to  assert  and  maintain  that  they  may,  is  very 


So 

pernicious,    and    to    be   detested."    f  JVestminster 
Confession.) 

I  am  very  willing  to  believe  that  the  doctrine,  as 
thus  stated  in  the  orthodox  confessions,  does  not 
make  a  part  of  Dr.  Woods'  faith ;  though  I  am 
unable  to  perceive  with  what  consistency  he  can 
reject  it,  while  he  retains  the  other  parts  of  the 
system  that  are  connected  with  it. 

If  the  doctrines  of  original  hereditary  depravity, 
absolute   personal    election,   effectual   calling,    and 
special  irresistible  grace  be  true,  that  of  reprobation, 
as  stated  above,  follows  of  course,  and  must  be  true 
also.     Whether  it   be  that  Dr.  Woods,  with  a  fair 
and   inquiring    mind,    actually    shrinks   from    this 
doctrine,  because  he  finds  it   cannot  be   defended 
consistently  with  the   moral   character  of  God  :  or 
only  thinks  it  desirable  to  keep  out   of  view  a  fea- 
ture of  Calvinism,  which  shocks  our  moral  feelings 
more  than  any  other ;  in  either  case,  I  deem   it   an 
auspicious  circumstance,  a  favourable  omen.     Men 
will  not  long  continue   to    hold  an  opinion,  after  it 
has  got  to  cause  a  painful  struggle  with  their  moral 
feelings,   such  as  to  dispose  them  to  endeavour  to 
keep  it  out  of  sight.  They  will  not  suffer  themselves 
to  be   long   encumbered  with  that,  which  they  are 
unable  to  defend   or   unwilling  to    avow.     Besides 
this,   it  cannot  fail   to  open  the  eyes  of  men  to   the 
difficulties  of  the  other  parts  of  the  system,  which 
are  intimately  connected  with  this,  which  necessarily 
flow  from  it,  and  are  in  fact  no  better  supported  by 
scripture  nor  by  reason  than  this. 


81 

LETTER  V. 

Following  the  arrangement  adopted  by  Dr. 
Woods,  the  next  subject  to  which  I  am  to  call  your 
attention  is  that  of  the  Atonement.     It  is  a  doctrine 
on  which  great  stress   is  laid  by  orthodox  writers 
generally.     The  author  of  the  Letters  addressed  to 
Unitarians  says,   ^^  If  there  is  any  one   doctrine  of 
Revelation  which  the  Orthodox  distinguish  in  point 
of  importance  from  all  others,  it  is   the  doctrine  of 
Atonement."     It  must  accordingly  be  thought,  that 
the  importance  of  having  clear  conceptions  and  just 
views  on  the  subject  will   bear  some  proportion  to 
the  importance  of  the  subject  itself.     After  such  an 
introduction,  therefore,  to  a  letter  devoted  expressly 
to  the  discussion   of  that   subject,   it  was  certainly 
reasonable  to   expect  a  distinct  statement  of  the 
orthodox  explanation  of  the  texts  of  scripture,  in 
which  it  is  supposed  to  be  taught,  and  a  defence  of 
the  interpretation  by  which  those  texts  are  under- 
stood  to    express   the   meaning  that  is  assigned  to 
them.     More  especially  was  this  to  be  expected  of 
one,  who  complains  that  the  opinions  of  the  Ortho- 
dox are  misrepresented,   and  who,  in  their  name, 
disclaims  the  opinions,  which  are  attributed  to  them. 
But  in  this  expectation  I  am  disappointed.     There 
is  much  complaint  of  misrepresentation,  but  I  find 
no  distinct  statement  in  what  the  alleged  misrepre- 
sentation consists,  nor  what  are  the  precise  opinions 
maintained  by  the  Orthodox  on  this  subject.     I  am 
able  to  collect  but   a  very  imperfect  and  indistinct 


82 

idea,  what  the  scheme,  which  claims  to  be  Orthodox 
on  this  subject,  is.  It  is  asserted,  that  the  language 
used  by  orthodox  writers  on  this  subject,  like  that 
used  by  the  sacred  writers,  is  highly  figurative, 
(p.  86,  Sec.)  that  it  is  not  to  be  understood  literally, 
that  it  does  not  mean,  what  it  seems  to  express.  It 
would  have  greatly  assisted  us,  and  possibly  put  a 
period  to  all  controversy  on  the  subject,  had  the 
writer  seen  fit  to  explain  the  figures,  and  give  the 
true  interpretation  of  the  metaphors,  which  it  is 
complained  have  been  so  misunderstood,  and  have 
thus  laid  the  foundation  for  misrepresentation. 

The  first  charge  of  misrepresentation  is,  that 
the  author  of  the  Sermon  makes  it  a  part  of  the 
orthodox  system,  *^  that  God  took  upon  him  human 
nature,  that  he  might  pay  to  his  own  justice  the 
debt  of  punishment  incurred  by  men,  and  might 
enable  himself  to  exercise  mercy'' — "  that  he  might 
appease  his  own  anger  toward  men,  or  make  an 
infinite  satisfaction  to  his  own  justice."  The  un- 
fairness alleged  in  this  representation  is,  that  it  does 
not  recognize  the  distinction  of  persons  in  the  Deity, 
which  is  maintained  by  the  Orthodox,  and  it  is 
implied,  that  if  no  such  distinction  do  exist,  the 
representation  would  not  be  liable  to  objection,  for 
no  objection  is  made  to  it  it  on  any  other  ground. 
It  was  incumbent  then  on  Dr.  Woods,  not  merely  to 
assert  this  distinction  as  an  article  of  the  orthodox 
faith,  but  to  explain  -what  it  is,  and  to  show  its 
foundation  in  the  language  of  scripture.  The  former 
he  has  declined,   as   not  being  within  the  scope  of 


83 

our  limited  mitids  (p.  84),  the  latter,  as  not  falling 
within  his  purpose  (p.  85),  in  the  discussion  of  the 
subject.  But  until  both  are  done,  I  can  see  no 
ground  for  complaining  of  the  absurdity  charged 
upon  the  doctrine.  It  is  a  legitimate  and  necessary 
consequence  of  the  orthodox  faith,  that  Jesus  Christ, 
whom  the  Father  sent  into  the  world,  is  the  same 
being  with  the  Father  who  sent  him  ;  that  Christ, 
who  interposed  and  made  an  atonement  for  sinners, 
is  the  same  being  with  that  God,  who,  it  is  alleged, 
(p.  65)  "would  never  have  saved  them  without  such 
an  interposition."  It  was  the  same  God,  the  same 
being,  who  sent,  and  was  sent,  who  made  the  atone- 
ment, and  whose  anger  was  appeased  by  the  atone- 
ment, who  made  satisfaction  to  offended  justice,  and 
whose  justice  was  satisfied.  It  is  not  enough  to  assert, 
(p.  64)  that  '^  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  two  as 
really  as  Moses  and  Aaron,  though  not  in  the  same 
sense,  nor  in  any  sense  inconsistent  with  their  being 
one."  It  belongs  to  him,  who  asserts  this,  to  state 
intelligibly,  what  is  the  nature  and  import  of  the 
distinction  here  intended ;  to  explain  in  what  sense 
two,  and  in  what  sense  one.  No  man  knows  better 
than  Dr.  Woods,  that  until  he  has  done  this,  he  has 
done  nothing  to  the  purpose.  He  uses  words  with- 
out meaning,  and  merely  casts  a  mist,  where  he  is 
bound  to  shed  light. 

The  next  imputation  on  the  orthodox  faith^ 
which  Dr.  Woods  endeavours  to  remove  is,  that  it 
conveys  to  common  minds  the  idea,  that  "  Christ's 
death  has  an  influence  in  making  God  placable,  or 


84 

merciful,  in  quenching  his  wrath,  and  awakening 
his  kindness  towards  men.*'  Now  to  vindicate  the 
system,  and  those  who  support  it,  from  this  charge, 
it  was  necessary  to  show,  that  the  language,  in 
which  the  doctrine  is  expressed  and  enforced  by 
the  Orthodox,  is  not  calculated  to  produce  this 
impression.  But  has  this  been  done  ?  By  no  means. 
The  contrary  is  frankly  admitted.  It  is  conceded 
that  the  literal  sense  of  the  orthodox  writings 
amounts  to  this.  It  is  asserted,  indeed,  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Orthodox  is  the  very  reverse  of  this, 
^^  that  the  mercy  of  God,  not  the  interposition  of 
Christ,  was  the  origin  and  moving  cause  of  the  work 
of  redemption  ;"  (p.  68)  "  that  the  mercy  or  placa- 
bility of  God  could  neither  be  produced  nor  increas- 
ed by  the  atonement  of  Christ.''  These  are  noble, 
correct,  scriptural  views.  We  are  delighted  to  find 
on  this  point  an  opinion  so  highly  important,  in 
exact  coincidence  with  that  of  Unitarians,  and  one 
to  which  they  attach  a  very  high  degree  of  impor- 
tance. We  are  glad  too  to  find  a  strong  sensibility 
expressed  to  the  honour  of  the  divine  character, 
and  horror  at  the  thought  of  an  opinion,  so  deroga- 
tory to  it,  as  that  which  is  attributed  to  the  influ- 
ence of  the  language  they  use  on  the  subject.  But 
why  then  does  he  go  on  to  defend  the  use  of  that 
language,  instead  of  correcting  it  ?  Since  it  is 
admitted  not  to  be  the  language  of  scripture,  and 
that  understood  literally  it  does  convey  the  ideas 
objected  to ;  that  it  does  make  the  impression  at 
which  so  much  horror  is  expressed,  does  express  a 


85 

'doctrine  acknowledged  to  be  false  and  unfounded  ; 
why  is  it  not  given  up  ?  Especially  as  it  would,  on 
this  point,  put  an  end  to  all  controversy.  And  why 
complain  that  the  opinions  of  the  Orthodox  arc 
misrepresented,  when  it  is  acknowledged  that  the 
opinions  attributed  to  them  are  the  literal  and 
obvious  meaning  of  the  language  they  employ  ? 

It  is  to  little  purpose  to  say,  that  the  figurative 
language  used  on  this  subject,  though  not  the  same, 
resembles  that  employed  by  the  sacred  writers  in 
reference  to  the  same  subject.  Dr.  Woods  admits 
that  the  language  of  the  sacred  writers  is  highly  fig- 
urative. He  admits  too  that  such  boldness  of  meta- 
phor is  peculiar  to  the  Eastern,  and  particularly  to 
the  Hebrew  idiom  ;  (p.  88)  and  that  it  is  not  so  con- 
sentaneous to  our  language,  (p.  99)  Why,  then, 
will  orthodox  writers  use  it  without  explanation, 
when  it  serves  to  mislead  readers  and  hearers  who 
are  not  aware  of  this  character  of  the  Eastern 
languages  ;  and  lead  them  into  so  great  an  error  ? 
And  if  orthodox  writers,  instead  of  explaining  the 
metaphors,  so  that  their  true  meaning  may  be  un- 
derstood, ^^for  the  purpose  of  strong  impression,'' 
use  them  as  if  they  were  to  be  understood  literally  ; 
and  not  only  so,  but  further  sanction  that  interpre- 
tation by  the  use  of  other  similar  language  of  the 
same  literal  import ;  especially  if  they  charge  Uni- 
tarians with  denying  or  explaining  away  the  doc- 
trine for  the  very  reason,  that  they  explain  the  lan- 
guage in  question  as  figurative  ;  can  he  be  surprized 
that  the  Orthodox  should  be  supposed  to  hold  the 
11 


86 

opinions,  which  the  language  literally  expresses  ? 
Could  it  be  imagined  by  a  plain,  honest  man,  un- 
der these  circumstances,  that  while  this  strong  im- 
pressive language  is  constantly  used  and  insisted  on, 
something  very  different  is  all  the  time  meant  from 
that  which  strikes  the  ear  ?  And,  let  me  ask,  does 
it  enter  into  the  minds  of  common  hearers  of  such 
language,  that,  correctly  interpreted,  it  expresses 
no  ideas,  which  would  be  "  objected  to  by  Unitari- 
ans ?"  (p.  92)  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  in  future  the 
opinions  of  Unitarians  on  this  part  of  the  subject 
will  be  viewed  with  less  aversion,  when  we  are  told 
from  so  high  authority,  that  "  the  language  used  by 
orthodox  writers  is  to  be  understood  as  highly  fig- 
urative ;  that,  taken  literally,  it  would  impute  a 
character  to  God,  which  would  excite  universal  hor- 
ror ;  but  understood  according  to  the  legitimate 
principles  of  interpreting  metaphors,  it  teaches  the 
simple  truth,  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  the 
means  of  procuring  pardon,  or  the  medium,  through 
which  salvation  is  granted.''  (p.  93)  Dr.  Woods  is 
right  in  supposing,  '^  that  no  objection  will  lie  in 
the  minds  of  Unitarians,"  against  the  doctrine 
thus  expressed.  It  is  the  very  manner  of  expressing 
the  influence  of  the  Atonement ;  which  has  been 
adopted  by  unitarian  writers. 

Dr.  Woods  proceeds  to  the  notice  of  several 
other  modes  of  expression,  the  use  of  which  by  the 
Orthodox  he  supposes  to  have  been  misunderstood, 
in  a  similar  manner,  and  from  the  same  cause,  the 
misinterpretation  of  figurative   language.      When 


87 

it  is  said  that  Christ  bought  us,  redeemed  us  by  his 
blood  ;  when  he  is  said  to  have  paid  our  debt,  to 
have  satisfied  divine  justice,  to  have  redeemed  us 
from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for 
us,  and  that   our  sin  was  imputed  to  him ;  when 
these  and  other  figurative  forms  of  expression  are 
employed  to   set  forth  the  design  and  influence  of 
Christ's  death,  we  are  told  "  they  are  to  be  in- 
terpreted as    metaphorical  language,  according  to 
the  nature  of  the  metaphors  used,  and  that  against 
the   literal    sense,    there    are    many    objections." 
(p.  95)     So  far  there  will  be  no  controversy  on  the 
part  of  Unitarians,  and  it  gives  us  no  small  satis- 
faction, that  we  have  here  a  ground  upon  which  we 
can  stand  together.     And  we  are  not  without  hope, 
that  agreeing  in  this  principle  on  which  to  proceed, 
we  shall  gradually  approach  nearer  together  in  the 
result,  till   there  shall   no   difference  remain  worth 
contending  about. 

But  when  Dr.  Woods  proceeds  to  explain  the 
figures,  he  seems  to  have  fallen  into  the  same 
error  ^'^  of  mixing  a  degree  of  the  literal  sense  with 
the  metaphorical,"  which  he  afterwards  mentions, 
and  to  which  he  traces  some  important  mistakes, 
into  which  other  writers  have  been  led.  To  per- 
ceive this,  you  have  only  to  compare  together  the 
passage  (p.  94),  in  which  he  professes  to  explain 
what  is  meant  by  our  being  bought,  redeemed, 
our  debt  paid,  and  divine  justice  satisfied ;  with 
that  (p.  96),  in  which  "  the  notion,  that  if  Christ 
has  made  a  perfect  atonement  and  satisfied  divine 


88 

justice^,  those  for  whom  he  has  done  this  are  no 
longer  under  the  same  obligations  to  obey  the  law, 
and  punishing  them  for  their  sins  would  no  longer 
be  just,  is  attributed  to  something  of  a  literal  sense 
being  applied  to  the  figurative  language  of  Scrip- 
ture and  of  orthodox  writers.  And  it  is  admitted, 
that  ''  if  Christ  paid  our  debt,  or  the  price  of  our 
redemption  literally,  as  a  friend  discharges  an  insol- 
vent debtor,  or  purchases  the  freedom  of  a  slave 
by  the  payment  of  money  ;  it  would  certainly  be 
an  unrighteous  thing  for  us  to  be  held  to  pay  our 
own  debt,  or  to  suffer  the  evils  of  servitude."  For  in 
the  passage  referred  to,  this  is  the  very  represen- 
tation that  is  made.  ^^  As  the  debtor  is  freed  from 
imprisonment  by  the  friend  who  steps  forward 
and  pays  his  debt,  so  are  sinners  freed  from  pun- 
ishment by  the  Saviour  who  shed  his  blood  for 
them."  The  payment  is  as  literal  in  the  one 
case  as  in  the  other  ;  and  I  see  not  how  the  con- 
sequence, consistently  with  what  is  admitted  above, 
is  to  be  avoided.  The  same  may  be  said  with 
respect  to  the  other  terms.  The  consequence  is 
not  to  be  evaded,  if  our  redemption  by  Christ 
means,  as  is  there  stated,  ''  his  delivering  us  from 
the  punishment  of  the  law  by  suffering  an  evil 
which,  so  far  as  the  ends  of  divine  government 
are  concerned,  was  equivalent  to  the  execution  of 
the  curse  of  the  law  upon  transgressors."  (p.  94) 
The  ends  of  the  divine  government  are  answered, 
the  demands  of  the  law  are  fulfilled.  It  has  no  far- 
ther demands.     When  Christ  has  done  and  suffered 


89 

that  which  answers  the  ends  of  justice  in  the  di- 
vine government,  the  necessity  of  punishment,  so 
far  as  those  ends  are  concerned,  is  superseded. 
The  sinner  then  is  free  ;  exempt  alike  from  obli- 
gation, and  from  danger  of  punishment.  The 
debt  is  paid  ;  justice  is  satisfied ;  the  ends  of  gov- 
ernment are  answered  by  the  voluntary  substitute. 
These  consequences  certainly  follow  from  the 
manner  which  Dr.  Woods  has  adopted  of  ex- 
plaining the  figurative  language  of  the  sacred 
writers. 

But  the  language  in  question  certainly  does 
admit  of  a  fair  and  unstrained  interpretation,  which 
leads  to  no  such  consequences.  We  are  declared 
to  have  "  redemption,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  by 
the  blood  of  Christ."  It  will  help  us  to  the  true 
•  interpretation  of  this  language  to  attend  to  the 
use  of  the  word  redemption  by  the  sacred  writers 
in  other  analogous  cases.  Literally  to  redeem  is 
to  relieve  from  forfeiture,  or  captivity,  or  slavery, 
or  to  rescue  from  punishment  by  the  payment  of 
a  price,  and  the  price  thus  paid  is  the  ransom. 
When,  by  a  price  paid  by  some  friend,  a  captive 
is  restored  to  liberty,  or  the  punishment  of  a  crim- 
inal is  remitted,  whose  life  was  forfeited  to  the  law  ; 
in  each  of  these  cases  there  is  a  redemption  in  the 
original  meaning  and  literal  sense  of  the  word.  In 
the  same  manner  also,  if  "  Christ  delivers  us  from 
punishment  by  suffering  an  evil,  which  was  equiv- 
alent, so  far  as  the  ends  of  the  divine  government 
are  concerned,  to  the   execution  of  the  curse  of 


90 

the  law  upon  transgressors/'  (p.  94)  that  is  a  literal 
redemption^  and  that  and  the  other  correspondent 
terms,  such  as  bought  and  ransomed,  are  applied, 
and  are  to  be  understood,  not  in  a  metaphorical 
but  a  literal  sense.  And  here  I  cannot  but  observe, 
that  the  error  complained  of,  that  of  mixing  a 
literal  with  the  metaphorical  sense  of  such  phrases, 
consists,  not  as  intimated,  (p.  95)  ^^  in  the  manner 
of  reasoning  upon  them,"  but  in  the  interpretation 
of  the  language  itself. 

Now  it  is  not  difficult  in  this  case  to  trace  the 
passage  of  the  term  in  question  from  its  original 
literal  meaning  to  its  metaphorical  use.  For  as  the 
deliverance  from  captivity  or  punishment  was  the 
principal  thing,  and  the  price  paid  as  a  ransom  only 
a  secondary  consideration  in  making  up  the  complex 
idea  of  redemption,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  the  term  • 
came  to  be  used  to  denote  the  principal  thing  alone, 
where  this  accessory  circumstance  was  wanting ; 
and  thus  any  kind  of  deliverance,  by  a  very  common 
change  in  the  use  of  language,  was  called  a  re- 
demption. Examples  occur  in  the  sacred  writings 
as  well  as  in  our  constant  use.  The  deliverance  of 
the  Israelites  from  Egyptian  bondage  is  called  a 
redemption,  and  God  is  said  on  this  account  to 
be  their  redeemer,  to  have  redeemed  them  from  the 
house  of  bondage,  and  out  of  the  hand  of  Pharaoh 
the  king  of  Egypt. 

But  how  was  this  redemption  effected?  Was 
a  ransom  paid  as  the  price  of  their  deliverance,  as 
an  equivalent  for  their  services,  as  a  consideration, 


91 

for  which  their  oppressors  were  to  let  them  go  r 
Let  the  sacred  historians  and  prophets  answer  this 
question.  (Exod.  vi.  6)  ^'  I  will  redeem  you  with  a 
stretched  out  arm,  and  with  great  judgments." 
(Deut.  ix.  26)  "  Destroy  not  thy  people,  which 
thou  hast  redeemed  through  thy  greatness,  which 
thou  hast  brought  forth  out  of  Egypt  with  a  mighty 
hand."  (Neh.  i.  10)  ^^Now  these  are  thy  servants 
and  thy  people,  whom  thou  hast  redeemed  by  thy 
great  power  and  thy  strong  hand."  The  nation  of 
Israel  then  was  redeemed,  not  by  a  ransom  paid  to 
their  former  oppressors,  as  the  price  of  their  eman- 
cipation, but  by  the  mighty  power  and  strong  hand 
of  Jehovah,  stretched  forth  in  those  signs  and  won- 
ders in  Egypt,  in  the  Red  Sea,  and  in  the  wilderness, 
by  which  the  Egyptian  monarch  was  compelled  to 
suffer  their  departure,  by  which  they  were  protect- 
ed and  avenged,  when  pursued  by  their  oppressors, 
and  were  conducted  in  safety  to  the  promised  land. 

The  terra  is  applied  also  in  a  similar  manner  to 
the  deliverance  of  that  nation  from  the  Babylonian 
captivity.  (Micah  iv.  10)  ^''Thou  shalt  go  even  to 
Babylon  ;  there  shalt  thou  be  delivered  ;  there  the 
Lord  shall  redeem  thee  from  the  hand  of  thine 
enemies."  It  is  applied  in  many  instances  also  to 
the  deliverance  of  individuals  from  danger,  captiv- 
ity, slavery,  or  any  great  calamity  ;  and  the  pro- 
priety of  the  term  is  sufficiently  maintained,  where 
something  important  is  done,  though  nothing  is 
literally  paid,  to  procure  the  deliverance. 

These  examples  of  the  use  of  this  terra  raay  lead 
us  to  some  just  notions  of  its  meaning,  as  applied  to 


92 

express  the  benefit  we  receive,  when  it  is  said  we 
have  redemption  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  It  is  not, 
that  his  death  was  a  price  literally  paid,  either  to 
God,  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  vindictive  justice,  or 
to  the  enemy  of  God  and  man,  as  the  purchase  of 
our  release  from  his  power.  He  was  our  redeemer 
in  the  same  sense,  in  which  God  was  the  redeemer 
of  the  children  of  Israel ;  and  he  redeemed  us  by 
his  blood,  as  they  were  redeemed  by  the  mighty 
power,  and  the  strong  arm  of  the  God  of  Israel. 
As  God  was  the  redeemer  of  Israel  by  the  miracles 
of  Egypt,  so  Christ  was  our  redeemer  by  those 
miracles  which  proved  him  to  be  a  messenger  and 
teacher  from  God ;  by  those  instructions  and  that 
example,  which  were  to  remove  our  ignorance,  and 
deliver  us  from  the  slavery  of  sin,  and  bondage  of 
corruption ;  by  those  high  motives  to  repentance 
and  holiness,  which  are  found  in  the  revelation  of  a 
future  life  and  righteous  retribution ;  and  especially 
by  the  confirmation  his  doctrine  and  promises 
received,  and  the  persuasive  eflicacy  given  to  his 
example,  by  his  sufferings,  his  voluntary  death, 
and  his  resurrection.  He  v/as  our  redeemer  by 
doing  and  suffering  all,  that  was  necessary  to  effect 
our  deliverance  from  the  power  of  sin,  to  bring  us 
to  repentance  and  holiness,  and  thus  make  us  the 
fit  objects  of  forgiveness  and  the  favour  of  heaven. 
This  view  of  the  subject  will  enable  us  to  correct 
an  error,  into  which  we  are  liable  to  be  led  by  lan- 
guage, which  we  frequently  meet  with  ;  as  when  it  is 
said  in  the  Letters  to  Unitarians,  that  "when  Christ 
is  said  to  pay  our  debt,  it  is  simply  signified,  that 


93 

by  means  of  his  sufferings,  he  delivers  us  from 
punishment."  (p.  94)  Christ  delivers  us  from  pun- 
ishment not  directly  by  his  sufferings.  It  is  not 
that  his  sufferings  are  in  any  sense  a  substitute  for 
ours.  It  is  not  that  satisfaction  is  made  by  his 
sufferings  to  divine  justice,  so  that  the  sinner  es- 
capes, because  ^^  there  is  no  further  need  of  punish- 
ment.*' It  is  not  that  our  sin  was  so  imputed  to 
Christ,  that  he  '^'^  suffered,  in  some  sense,  as  he 
would  have  suffered  if  our  sin  had  been  really 
imputed  to  him,''  and  that  we  are  directly  in  con- 
sequence of  this  vicarious  suffering  exempted  from 
the  punishment.  But  his  sufferings  are  the  means 
of  delivering  us  from  punishment,  only  as  they  are 
instrumental  in  delivering  us  from  the  dominion  of 
sin.  They  are  the  grounds  of  our  forgiveness,  only 
as  they  are  the  means  of  bringing  us  to  repentance, 
only  as  they  operate  to  bring  us  to  that  state  of 
holiness,  and  conformity  to  the  will  of  God,  which 
has  the  promise  of  forgiveness,  and  qualifies  us 
for  it. 

There  is  another  term  also  used  by  the  sacred 
writers  to  express  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  death, 
which  admits  of  a  satisfactory  explanation  somewhat 
similar  to  that  which  has  been  given  of  redemption, 
and  is  to  be  understood  as  having  passed  to  a 
similar  metaphorical  sense.  The  whole  of  that,  by 
which  the  benefits  of  redemption  are  procured  for 
us,  whether  it  be  the  active  obedience,  or  the  suf- 
ferings and  death  of  Christ,  or  both  together,  is 
spoken  of  as  a  sacrifice,  (Heb.  ix.  26)  ^'He  ap- 
peared to  put  away  sin  bv  the  sacrifice  of  himself." 
12 


94 

The  meaning  of  this  is  rendered  perfectly  intelli- 
gible, and  is  freed  from  the  insuperable  difficulties 
that  attend  any  explanation,  in  which  is  contained 
^^a  mixture  of  the  literal  with  the  metaphorical 
sense,"  by  attending  to  a  change  from  a  literal  to 
a  metaphorical  sense  of  the  term  sacrifice,  similar 
to  that,  which  has  been  noticed  in  the  terms  redeem 
and  redemption. 

A  sacrifice,  in  its  primitive  meaning,  is  an  of- 
fering   made   to   God,    as   an    acknowledgment  of 
dependence,  as  an  expression  of  gratitude,  or  for 
the  expiation  of  sin.      It  is  thus  applied   to  the 
various   offerings  appointed  in  the  Jewish  ritual. 
But  as  the  effect  to  be  produced  is  the  principal 
thing,  and  it  is  of  little  comparative  importance 
in  what  manner  it  is  produced,  and  by  what  cir- 
cumstance or  act  it  is  brought  about ;    any   other 
act,  by  which  a  similar  effect  is  produced,  though 
no  proper  sacrifice  be  offered,  is  familiarly  called 
by  the  sacred  writers  a  sacrifice.     We  find   the 
term   thus   applied   to   prayer   and    thanksgiving. 
(Psalm  cxli.  2)  '^  Let  my   prayer  be    set   before 
thee  as  incense,  and  the  lifting  up  of  my  hands  as 
the  evening  sacrifice."     (Psalm  cxvi.   17)  "I  will 
offer  to  thee  the  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving."     (Heb. 
xiii.  15) ''  By  him  let  us  offer  the  sacrifice  of  praise, 
that  is,  the  fruit  of  our  lips."     It  is  applied  to  a 
holy  life.     (Rom.  xii.  1)  "  That  ye  present  your 
bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable  to  God." 
It  is   finally   applied   to  an   act  of  kindness  and 
relief.     (Phil.  iv.  18)  '^\  have  received  the  things 
\yhich  ye  sent,  a  sacrifice  acceptable,  well  pleasing 


^5 

to  God.''  It  is  by  a  use  of  the  terra  similar  to 
what  we  find  in  these  examples,  that  sacrifice  is 
applied  to  whatever  was  done  by  Jesus  Christ  for 
our  benefit,  especially  to  the  labours  and  mortifica- 
tions of  his  life,  and  the  sufferings  that  attended  his 
death  ;  and  that  he  is  said  to  have  "  put  away  sin 
by  the  sacrifice  of  himself." 

It  may  further  help  us  to  correct  notions  on 
this  subject,  to  be  reminded  of  what  a  change  the 
word  Atonement  itself  has  undergone.  This  term 
is  now  more  used  than  any  other  to  express  the 
popular  doctrine  of  an  expiation  for  sin  procured 
by  the  death  of  Christ,  a  satisfaction  made  to 
divine  justice,  the  Deity  thus  rendered  propitious, 
his  anger  appeased,  his  .mercy  conciliated,  and 
forgiveness  obtained  for  those,  for  whom  this  atone- 
ment was  made. 

But  it  is  evident,  I  think,  that  this  was  not 
the  original  meaning  of  the  word.  It  occurs  but 
once  only  in  the  New  Testament,  (Rom.  v.  11) 
^'  By  whom  we  have  now  received  the  atonement.'' 
And  in  that  case  it  is  translated  from  a  word, 
»ocTu}\.Ka>y7]t  which  in  every  other  instance  is  ren- 
dered reconciliation.  The  same  is  undoubtedly 
the  meaning  of  the  word  also  in  this  place.  And 
we  have  reason  to  think,  that  it  was  understood  to 
be  its  meaning  by  the  translators,  and  that  they 
meant  to  use  the  word  atonement  in  that  sense  only. 
This  is  rendered  probable  by  the  formation  of  the 
word  itself.  It  is  a  compound  word,  and  in  some 
early  English  writers  the  composition  of  the  word 
is  indicated,  and  thus  its  meaning  pointed  out  in 


74 

the  manner  of  writing  it^,  at-one-ment^  at-one. 
Atonement  then  expressed  the  condition  of  being 
at  one,  in  a  state  of  agreement,  reconciliation ; 
and  to  atone  was  to  produce  reconciliation,  to 
bring  parties  to  agreement,  so  that  they  shall  be 
at-one. 

Dr.  Johnson  has  mentioned  two  instances  of 
this  use  of  the  word  in  a  writer  of  the  next  age 
preceding  that,  in  which  our  translation  of  the 
Bible  was  made. 

*'  He  and  Aufidus  can  no  more  atone. 

Than  violentest  contrariety." — Shakspeare's  Coriolamis. 

That  is,  can  no  more  agree,  be  reconciled,  be  at 
one.     Again, 

"  He  seeks  to  make  atonement 

Between  the  Duke  of  Gloster  and  your  brothers." 

That  is,  to  produce  a  reconciliation  between  them, 
to  bring  them  to  agreement. 

Now,  when  we  thus  consider  the  change  of 
meaning,  which  this  word  has  undergone,  from 
expressing  simply  the  state  of  agreement,  the  fact 
of  a  reconciliation,  to  express  that,  by  which  the 
agreement  is  produced,  the  reconciliation  is  effect- 
ed ;  we  find  in  the  use  of  the  word  itself  no  support 
of  the  doctrine  it  is  usually  understood  to  express. 
The  term  has  evidently  a  different  meaning  as 
used  by  St.  Paul,  and  probably  as  understood  by 
his  translator,  from  what  it  has  in  modern  books  of 
controversial  theology. 

According  to  the  explanations  which  have  now 
been  given,  of  the  language  of  the  New  Testament 


97 

on  this  subject,  it  will  be  seen,  that  those  Unitarians 
who  reject  the  popular  doctrine  of  the  Atonement, 
yet  attribute  an  important  eflicacy  to  the  sufferings 
and   death,   as  well  as  the  instructions  and  exam- 
ple of  Jesus  Christ,  in  procuring  pardon  and  sal- 
vation.     But  this   efficacy  consists,    not  in  their 
appeasing  the  anger  of  God,  and  disposing  him 
to    be  merciful,    but   in  their  moral  influence  on 
men,   in   bringing   them    to    repentance,    holiness, 
and   an  obedient   life,    and   thus    rendering  them 
fit  subjects  of  forgiveness  and  the  divine  favour. 
The  sufferings  and   death  of  Christ  are  thus  rep- 
resented  as  being  not  in   our  stead,   but  for  our 
benefit;  and  intended  to  render  the  forgiveness  of 
sin  consistent  with  "  the  honours  of  the  divine  law, 
the  character  of  the  lawgiver,  and  the  interests  of 
his  moral  kingdom,"  (p.  102) — not  by  satisfying  jus- 
tice, but  by  subduing  the  spirit  of  rebellion,  restor- 
ing the  authority  and  power  of  the  law,  and  making 
men  obedient  subjects. 

And  these  explanations  meet  in  a  satisfactory 
manner  the  true  meaning  of  the  two  texts,  which 
Dr.  Woods  has  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  illus- 
trating (p.  101)  the  ^'bearing  which  the  death  of 
Christ  has  on  the  moral  government  of  God,  and 
how  it  secures  mercy  to  penitent  sinners."  Accord- 
ing to  this  view  of  the  subject,  ^^  Christ  was  made  a 
curse  for  us,"  not  in  our  stead  and  as  our  substitute, 
but  for  our  benefit.  And  his  being  made  a  curse 
for  us  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  from 
the  punishment  due  to  us  as  transgressors  of  the  law, 
by  its  influence  in  bringing  us  back   ta  repentance 


98 

and  subjection  to  the  law.  And  when  this  was  done, 
the  sinner  reconciled  to  God,  brought  to  repentance, 
subjection  to  the  law,  and  a  life  of  holiness,  the 
purposes  of  God's  moral  government  are  answered, 
its  authority  is  supported,  his  law  is  vindicated, 
*^  God  is  justified,  is  seen  to  be  just,  is  perceived  to 
have  a  regard  to  justice,  in  justifying  him,  who 
believes  in  Jesus."  It  is'  seen  that  in  extending 
pardon  to  the  penitent  believer,  he  has  not  yielded 
up  the  authority  of  his  law,  nor  subjected  his  gov- 
ernment to  contempt. 

The  question  which  Dr.  Woods  here  asks  him- 
self, (p.  102)  "  what  hindrance  there  is  in  the  way 
of  God's  showing  the  same  favour  to  transgressors 
as  to  the  obedient,''  is  incorrectly  stated,  so  as  to 
give  a  deceptive  view.  The  question  is  not,  whether 
God  can  consistently  with  his  character  of  moral 
governor,  and  the  honour  and  safety  of  his  govern- 
ment, show  favour  to  transg7'essors,  but  whether  he 
can  extend  forgiveness  to  \he  penitent,  to  those  who 
have  ceased  to  be  transgressors,  and  have  returned 
to  their  allegiance.  The  answer  to  this  question 
would  be  very  different  from  what  the  other  re- 
quires. None  of  the  consequences,  which  it  is 
readily  admitted  must  follow  on  that  supposition, 
would  have  any  place  on  this.  God's  readiness  to 
show  favour  to  those  who  repent  and  return  to 
virtue,  does  not  show,  "  that  the  authority  of 
the  law  is  set  aside,  and  that  no  distinction  is 
made  between  virtue  and  vice."  Nothing  indeed 
can  show  in  a  stronger  light  than  this,  God's  love 
of  virtue,  and  desire  to  encourage  it  by  encouraging 


99 

the  first  return  to  it.  No  other  expedient,  which 
the  wisdom  of  God  could  devise,  certainly  not  that 
which  consists  in  an  atonement  by  the  substitution, 
either  literal  or  figurative,  of  the  sufferings  of  an 
innocent  person  in  the  place  of  the  guilty,  will  show 
better  than  the  necessity  of  repentance  and  holiness 
and  their  ejficacy  in  order  to  forgiveness  and  the 
divine  favour,  ^"^  that  God  does  and  for  ever  will 
make  a  distinction  between  holiness  and  sin." 

I  have  next  to  make  some  remarks  on  the  de- 
fence of  the  orthodox  faith  against  the  objection, 
that  it  "  lowers  the  value  of  Christ's  sacrifice,  and 
robs  his  death  of  interest  ;"  because  consisting, 
according  to  this  scheme,  of  a  divine  and  human 
nature  united  together,  the  human  nature  only 
could  suffer  and  die.  So  that,  instead  of  the  infinite 
atonement  made  by  the  sufferings  and  death  of  an 
infinite  being,  it  is  in  fact  only  the  sufferings  and 
death  of  a  man.  The  defence  is  made  on  the  common 
ground  of  the  "  human  and  divine  nature  in  Christ 
constituting  but  one  person,  so  that  all  his  actions 
and  sufferings  belong  to  him  as  one  person."  As 
this  is  the  only  defence  that  is,  and  the  only  one 
that  can  be,  set  up,  let  us  examine  a  little  its  value 
and  force.  It  is  admitted,  that  if  the  premises  are 
true,  the  conclusion  does  follow;  if  Jesus  Christ  is 
both  perfect  God  and  perfect  man  in  one  individual 
person,  the  defence  is  complete. 

But  in  the  first  place  I  remark,  that  the  possi- 
bility of  two  distinct  intelligent  natures  makirg  but 
one  person,  has  never  been  shewn  to  the  smallest 
degree  of  satisfaction ;  especially  of  two  natures  so 


100 

distinct  and  distant  as  the  divine  and  human,  a  finite 
and  an  infinite  mind.  No  Trinitarian  can  deny, 
that  in  Jesus  Christ  are  two  perfectly  distinct  minds, 
two  perfectly  distinct,  intelligent  natures,  as  distinct 
as  any  two  intelligent  beings  can  be.  But  two 
distinct  minds,  two  distinct  intelligent  beings,  with 
each  its  separate  consciousness,  knowledge,  capaci- 
ty, will,  and  action,  cannot  be  other  than  two  distinct 
persons.  But  all  these  the  trinitarian  doctrine 
attributes  to  Jesus  Christ.  Separate  consciousness, 
for  the  divine  nature  by  the  supposition  was  not 
conscious  of  any  of  that  sufi'ering,  by  which  the 
atonement  was  made  ; — separate  knowledge,  for  it 
is  alleged,  that  the  divine  person  knew  that,  of 
which  the  human  person  was  ignorant ; — separate 
capacity,  for  the  human  nature  of  Christ  could  in- 
crease in  wisdom  and  knowledge,  while  the  divine 
nature,  being  omniscient,  was  incapable  of  increase  ; 
— separate  will,  for  the  human  person  most  earnestly 
prayed  for  that  to  take  place,  which  it  could  cer- 
tainly be  no  wish  of  the  omniscient  mind  should 
take  place  ; — separate  action,  for  while  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  was  limited  to  the  labours  only  of 
a  man,  and  confined  to  a  narrow  space,  the  divine 
nature  was  extending  its  influence  to  all  beings  and 
events,  and  producing  its  effects  over  worlds  and 
systems  throughout  the  universe.  It  is  impossible 
for  any  reasoning  to  show  more  clearly,  than  this 
simple  statement,  the  absolute  incredibility  of  this. 
But  this  is  not  all.  The  identity  of  person  is  not 
only  shown  to  be  impossible,  upon  the  trinita- 
j'ian  hypothesis.      The   only  ground   upon  which 


101 

Some  of  the  strongest  objections  to  the  trinitariau 
doctrine,    that   part  of  it,    which    consists   in    the 
supreme    Deity   of  Jesus    Christ,    can   be    evaded 
is,    by  the  assumption  of  two  distinct  persons  in 
Jesus    Christ :   by  assuming  that     he    sp..ke,    and 
acted,    and   suffered,    and  was    spoken  of   in  two 
different   characters.      And    this    assumption    has 
been  made,    ss  far  as  I  have  seen,   universally  by 
trinitarian    writers,    not  in   words  indeed,    but   in 
fact.  ''Hercy  it  is  asserted,  no  argument  lies  against 
his   divinity,   for  he  is  speaking  not  as  God,   but  as 
man.     Of  this  indeed  he  was  ignorant  as  man,  but 
he  knew  it  as  God,  and  this  he  might  truly  say  he 
was  unable  to   do   as  man,  though  as  God  he   could 
do  all  things."     This,  I  observe,  is  the  answer  on 
which  Trinitarians  have  rested,  and  it  is   the  only 
one  they  have  offered  to  all  those  texts,  and  they  are 
very  numerous,  in  which  inferiority  to  the  Father, 
limited  knowledge,  and  limited  power  are  expressed 
or  implied.     And   this   goes  on  the   supposition  of 
two  distinct  persons,  and   is   utterly  absurd   on  any 
other  supposition.     It  is  indeed  a  palpable  contra- 
diction to  say,  that  the  same  person  knows  and  does 
not  know  the  same  thing  at  the  same  time  ;  can  do 
and  cannot  do   the  same   thing   at   the  same   time. 
And  this   contradiction,  and  worse   than  trifling,  is 
attributed  to  the  Saviour  in  some  of  his  most  solemn 
declarations,  by  the  supposition  in  question.     With 
these  brief  hints  I  am  willing  to  leave  the  reader  to 
make   up  his  judgment,  ^' how  far  the  views  of  the 
Orthodox  in  this  case  are  capable  of  being  defended 

in  a  satisfactory  manner,'' 
13 


102 

1  would  gladly  have  passed  unnoticed  what  I 
find  on  the  last  page  of  the  Letter  respecting  the 
Atonement,  as  it  is  unpleasant  to  be  obliged  to 
express  the  censure,  to  which  I  think  a  charge  of 
so  serious  a  kind,  as  is  there  brought  against  those, 
who  reject  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  is  entitled 
to.  This  subject,  it  seems,  is  one,  which  it  is  dan- 
gerous to  discuss,  and  on  which  it  is  not  safe  even 
to  inquire.  For  certainly,  if  the  rejection  of  the 
doctrine  is  in  itself  "  a  plain  indication  of  the  dis- 
position of  the  heart,  and  a  proof  of  a  temper  of 
mind,  which  is  in  total  contrariety  to  the  humble 
spirit  of  Christian  faith,"  it  is  not  a  subject  on- 
which  it  is  safe  to  trust  ourselves  in  speculating. 
The  only  safety  is  in  believing  without  inquiry, 
receiving  implicitly  without  examining.  For  if  we 
allow  ourselves  to  inquire,  the  result  may  be,  that 
we  shall  reject,  and  rejection  will  indicate  "  a  dis- 
position of  heart,  inconsistent  with  the  humble 
spirit  of  Christian  faith." 

But  this,  I  am  persuaded,  cannot  have  been  the 
intention  of  the  author  of  the  Letters.  The  expres- 
sions must  have  been  used  in  haste,  without  well 
considering  their  import  and  bearing.  It  cannot 
have  been  his  design,  to  deter  those  whom  he  ad- 
dresses from  examining  the  evidences  of  a  doctrine, 
respecting  which  Christians  have  been  so  little 
agreed,  and  which  has  been  so  variously  understood 
and  explained,  by  those  who  receive  it. 

A  doctrine  which  we  cannot  deny,  without  in- 
curring the  charge  of  wanting  the  humble  spirit  of 
Christian  faith,  and  about  which  it  is  therefore 


103 

unsafe  to  allow  ourselves  to  inquire,  we  have  cer- 
'  tainly  a  right  to  demand  to  find  either  distinctly 
and  intelligibly  expressed  in  the  scriptures,  or 
clearly  stated  and  explained  in  the  writings  of  those, 
who  propose  them  as  essential  parts  of  the  Christian 
doctrine.  But  where,  I  ask,  are  we  to  look  for  a 
clear  and  distinct  statement  of  the  orthodox  doc- 
trine of  Atonement?  The  genuine  doctrine  of 
Calvinism  is  indeed  stated  by  the  early  writers  of 
that  school  in  a  manner  sufficiently  clear  and  intel- 
ligible. But  every  feature  of  that  is  denied  as  a 
misrepresentation  of  the  orthodox  faith.  We  are 
told  that  the  language  of  the  orthodox,  like  that  of 
the  scriptures,  is  metaphorical,  not  to  be  understood 
literally  ;  and  I  in  vain  seek  for  such  an  explana- 
tion of  the  metaphors,  as  to  enable  me  to  understand 
what  is  the  distinct  doctrine,  which  is  intended  to 
be  maintained.  A  fleeting  and  shadowy  image  is 
presented  to  the  view,  which  eludes  every  attempt 
to  fix  its  shape,  and  dimensions,  and  features.  And 
can  it  be,  that  my  inability  to  receive  a  doctrine, 
expressed  in  words,  of  which  I  am  only  told  what 
they  do  not  mean,  and  not  what  they  do,  is  to  be 
regarded  as  "  an  indication  of  a  disposition  of  heart 
and  temper  of  mind,  which  is  in  total  contrariety  to 
the  humble  spirit  of  Christian  faith." 

There  are  some  other  sentiments  in  this  para- 
graph also,  which  must  not  be  passed  without 
notice.  It  is  asserted,  '^  that  God,  having  sent  his 
Son  to  be  a  propitiation,  has  told  us,  that  we  must 
rely  upon  his  atoning  blood,  as  the  sole  ground  of 
forgiveness J'^    I  would  ask  where  God  has  told  us. 


104 

that  ^^the  atoning  blood  of  Christ  is  the  sole  ground 
of  forgiveness.'"' 

I  find  the  prophet  Isaiah,  without  any  reference 
to  any  kind  of  atonement,  referring  the  forgiveness 
of  sin  solely  to  the  mercy  of  God,  by  which  he  is 
ready  to  accept  reformation  and  a  return  to  virtue. 
(Is.  Iv.  7)  **Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way,  and 
the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts,  and  let  him 
return  unto  the  Lord,  and  he  will  have  mercy  upon 
him,  and  to  our  God,  for  he  will  abundantly  par- 
don." I  find  David,  in  the  depth  of  his  sorrow 
and  distress  in  the  consciousness  of  deep  and  aggra- 
vated guilt,  by  which  he  had  incurred  severe  tokens 
of  the  divine  displeasure  ;  in  pouring  forth  his 
humble  supplications  for  pardon,  placing  his  hope, 
in  no  sacrifice,  or  atonement,  but  solely  in  the 
mercy  of  God,  and  the  evidence  he  should  give  of 
true  repentance.  (Psalm  li.  1,  16,  17)  ^^  Have 
mercy  upon  me,  O  God,  according  to  thy  loving 
kindness,  according  to  the  multitude  of  thy  tender 
mercies,  blot  out  my  transgressions.". ...'•Thou 
desirest  not  sacrifice,  else  would  I  give  it.  The 
sacrifices  of  God  are  a  broken  spirit ;  a  broken 
and  contrite  heart,  O  God,  thou  wilt  not  despise." 
I  find  John  the  baptist  announcing  the  approach  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  with  the  call  to  repentance, 
and  intimating  nothing  else  as  requisite,  preparatory 
to  being  the  fit  subjects  of  it,  but  that  men  should 
*' repent'"  and  *^  bring  forth  fruits  meet  for  repen- 
tance." (Matt,  iii.  2,  8)  I  find  Jesus  Christ  himself 
declaring,  (Matt.  vi.  14)  "If  ye  forgive  men  their 
trespasses,  your  heavenly  Father  will  also  forgive 


105 

you."  And  I  find  it  the  object  of  one  of  his  most 
beautiful  and  touching  parables  (Luke  xv.)  to  teach 
his  followers^  not  tliat  God  demands  with  unrelent- 
ing severity  full  satisfaction  "in  the  atoning  blood 
and  perfect  righteousness"  of  another,  as  the  found- 
ation of  hope,  and  ground  of  forgiveness ;  but  pro- 
claiming the  essential  mercy  and  placability  of  our 
heavenly  Father,  and  his  readiness,  not  only  to 
receive  and  restore  his  penitent  children,  but  to 
meet  with  joy  the  first  workings  of  ingenuous 
sorrow  and  a  sense  of  guilt,  and  the  first  symptoms 
of  a  disposition  and  wish  to  return  to  duty.  "When 
he  was  yet  a  great  way  off,  the  father  had  compas- 
sion on  him,  and  ran  to  meet  him."  To  this  com- 
passion and  reconciliation  he  was  solely  moved,  as 
far  as  we  are  informed,  by  the  return  of  the 
penitent  to  a  sense  of  his  guilt  and  his  duty  ;  "Fa- 
ther, I  have  sinned  against  heaven  and  in  thy 
sight,  and  am  no  more  w^orthy  to  be  called  thy 
son.''...." This,  my  son,  was  dead,  and  is  alive 
again,  he  was  lost  and  is  found."  I  find  it  was  the 
prayers  and  alms  of  Cornelius  that  "came  up  into 
remembrance  with  God,"  and  that  "in  every  nation 
he  that  feareth  God,  and  worketh  righteousness, 
is  declared  to  be  accepted  with  him."  (Acts 
X.  4,  35.) 

These  declarations,  and  numerous  others  of  the 
same  import,  must  surely  have  been  out  of  the  mind 
of  the  writer,  when  he  asserted,  in  the  words  I  have 
before  quoted,  "  that  God  has  told  us,  that  we  must 
rely  on  the  atoning  blood  of  his  son,  as  the  sole 
ground  of  forgiveness. 


106 

I  must  take  leave  also  to  correct  some  other 
expressions,  standing  in  close  connexion  with  this. 
It  is  implied  in  a  manner  not  to  be  misunderstood, 
in  the  paragraph  in  question,  that  Unitarians,  or 
those  who  reject  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement, 
*^  hope  for  heaven  on  the  footing  of  their  own  virtue 
or  good  works,"  (p.  105)  that  they  *^  think  them- 
selves entitled  to  future  happiness  on  their  own 
account,  and  rest  their  hopes  of  heaven  on  their 
own  goodness. '^  But  is  there  no  alternative  between 
'^  relying  on  the  atoning  blood  of  the  son  of  God, 
as  the  sole  ground  of  forgiveness,"  and  relying  on 
our  own  merit,  as  the  sole  ground  of  acceptance  ? 
Unitarians,  as  far  as  I  know,  and  as  far  as  I  can 
learn  from  their  writings,  are  equally  distant  from 
each  of  these  extremes.  Their  dependence  is  wholly 
on  the  mercy  of  God,  for  they  believe  that  all  men, 
on  account  of  their  actual  sin,  stand  in  need  of 
mercy,  and  are  wholly  incapable  of  meriting  salva- 
tion, and  claiming  it  as  a  matter  of  right ;  that 
mercy,  they  believe,  is  promised  to  all  who  repent : 
yet  that  the  salvation  of  the  best  of  men  is  of  grace, 
and  not  of  debt,  what  they  cannot  demand  as  a 
right,  yet  may  claim  on  the  ground  of  the  divine 
promise.  A  promise,  too,  not  in  consideration  of 
satisfaction  having  been  made  by  the  vicarious 
suffering  of  a  substitute,  but  originating  in  free 
sovereign  mercy,  and  contemplating  the  change  of 
character  implied  in  repentance,  as  alone  a  sufficient 
reason  for  this  exercise  of  it. 

But  though  Unitarians,  in  rejecting  the  ortho- 
dox doctrine  of  atonement,  do  not  maintain  the 


107 

opinion  attributed  to  them  of  the  worth  and  suffi- 
ciency of  human  merit ;  yet  they  will  certainly  not 
acquiesce  in  the  opinion,  so  strongly  expressed  by 
the  author  of  the  Letters,  of  the  entire  worthless- 
ness  of  all  the  works  of  rigliteousness  and  good 
dispositions  of  men.  They  think  such  expressions 
equally  inconsistent  with  truth,  and  of  pernicious 
tendency.  For  if  human  virtue  be  thought  of  no 
value,  and  of  no  estimation  in  the  sight  of  God,  the 
motive  for  its  practice  is  weakened,  if  not  destroyed. 
We  shall  feel  little  interest  in  seeking  high  attain- 
ments in  that,  which  is  of  so  little  consideration,  or  is 
so  offensive,  that  it  must  not  be  named  in  the  presence 
of  God.  But  let  me  ask,  where  we  are  to  find  the 
inhibition  so  confidently  asserted.  Where  ^Mias 
God  taught  us,  (p.  105)  that  no  works  of  righteous- 
ness which  we  have  done,  and  no  accomplishments 
or  dispositions  which  we  possess,  must  ever  be 
named  in  his  presence  ?''  I  find  instances  innumer- 
able, in  which  the  reverse  of  this  is  expressed  in  a 
very  clear  and  unequivocal  manner.  It  is  expres- 
sed by  Paul,  when  he  said,  (Rom.  ii.  6,  10)  "  God 
will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  deeds,'' 
and  has  prepared  "  glory,  and  honour,  and  peace, 
for  every  man  that  worketh  good.*'  And  as  he 
thus  believed  that  the  good  deeds  of  good  men  were 
regarded  with  approbation  and  complacency  by 
their  Maker ;  so  he  was  certainly  not  aware  that  it 
was  either  criminal  or  improper  to  7mme  them  hi  his 
presence,  when  he  so  exultingly  appealed  to  the 
course  of  his  past  life,  and  expressed  his  so  strong 
assurance  of  the  future  rewards  of  virtue  :  (2  Tim. 


168 

iv.  7)  '^•1  have  fought  a  good  fight,  1  have  finished 
my  course,  I  have  kept  the  faith  ;  henceforth  there 
is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  righteousness,  which  the 
Lord,  the  righteous  Judge,  shall  give  me  at  that 
day.'' 

Such  a  thought  must  have  been  far  from  the 
mind  of  our  Saviour,  when  he  directed  his  disciples 
to  plead  their  good  deeds  in  their  supplications  to 
God  for  his  mercy ;  (Matt.  vi.  12)  '•  Forgive  us  our 
debts,  as  we  forgive  our  debtors,"  with  the  express 
assurance,  that  this  plea  will  not  be  disregarded, 
''*  for  if  ye  forgive  men  their  trespasses,  your  heav- 
enly Father  will  also  forgive  you."  Such  a  thought 
seems  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  declaration, 
^^That  the  son  of  man  will  come  in  the  glory  of  his 
Father,  and  will  then  reward  every  man  according 
to  his  works;"  (Matt.  xvi.  27)  for  such  a  declaration 
implies,  that  the  works  of  men  are  of  some  account 
in  the  mind  of  Him,  who  will  be  their  judge,  are  to 
be  brought  into  solemn  account,  and  to  furnish  the 
grounds  of  the  decisions  of  the  great  day. 

I  would  request  you  also  to  compare  with  the 
assertion  under  consideration,  '^  that  God  has 
taught  us  that  no  works  of  righteousness '  which 
we  have  done,  and  no  accomplishments  or  dispo- 
sitions, which  we  possess,  must  ever  be  named  in 
his  presence  5"  the  parable  of  the  talents  in  the 
XXV.  chap,  of  Matthew,  and  the  representation  of 
the  final  judgment  in  a  more  direct  form,  which 
immediately  follows  it.  To  whom  and  upon  what 
ground,  in  the  former  case,  was  the  eulogy  pro- 
nounced, and  the  reward  assigned;  '*Well  done 


109 

good  and  faithful  servant,  thou  hast  heen  faithful 
over  a  few  things,  I  will  make  thee  ruler  over 
many  things  ?"  And  in  the  latter,  to  whom  was 
tiddressed  the  welcome,  ^^  Come,  ye  blessed  of  my 
Father,  inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world  ?"  It  was  in  each 
case  the  faithful,  the  humane,  and  the  obedient; 
and  in  each  case  it  was  the  good  deeds  they  had 
done,  ^'  the  good  dispositions  they  had  manifested, 
the  fidelity  with  which  they  had  nsed  the  talents 
entrusted  to  them,  the  kindness  with  which  they 
had  conducted  in  the  relations  in  which  they  were 
placed,  that  recommended  them  to  the  approbation 
of  the  judge,  and  procured  for  them  the  rewards 
he  had  to  distribute.  No  allusion  is  made  to  a 
^^  perfect  righteousness,  which  God  has  provided 
for  them"  to  supersede  their  own  personal  right- 
eousness, or  to  render  it  valueless.  Indeed  noth- 
ing can  be  more  clear,  than  that  if  it  be  of  no 
value,  of  no  account,  and  not  to  be  named  in  the 
presence  of  God,  it  is  not  worth  our  pursuit,  and 
those  are  the  truly  wise,  who  place  their  whole 
dependence  on  the  worthiness  of  Him,  who  was 
righteous  for  them,  and  trouble  not  themselves 
about  the  attainment  of  personal  righteousness, 
which  being  of  no  account,  can  be  of  no  use. 

I  know  that  this  consequence  will  be  rejected 
with  abhorrence  by  every  serious   believer  in  the 
doctrine ;  but  I  know,  too,  that  it  does  not  follow 
with  the  less  certainty  from  it. 
14 


110 

LETTER  VI. 

The  subject  to  which  I  would  next  call  your 
attention  is  that  of  divine  influerwe  ;  the  discussion 
of  which  occupies  the  tenth  letter  of  Dr.  Woods. 
Upon  this  subject  we  must  keep  carefully  in  mind 
the  distinction  between  the  general  doctrine,  and 
that  which  is  peculiar  to  Calvinism.  It  is  with  the 
latter  only  that  we  are  concerned  as  a  subject  of 
controversy.  To  the  indistinctness  and  obscurity, 
which  arises  from  confounding  them  together,  we 
owe  much  of  the  difficulty,  in  which  this  subject  is 
usually  involved. 

As  to  the  general  doctrine  of  divine  influence,  I 
observe,  there  is  no  controversy.  It  is  implied  in 
the  government  of  providence,  in  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  dependence  on  God,  and  in  every  prayer. 
We  may  suppose  it  to  be  direct  and  immediate,  or 
only  such  as  reaches  us  through  the  instrumental- 
ity of  those  means,  by  which  common  effects  are 
usually  produced,  and  thus  not  distinguishable  from 
the  common  course  of  nature.  None,  I  suppose, 
will  deny  the  possibility  of  a  direct  access  to  the 
human  mind  by  him,  who  gave  being  and  all  its 
powers  to  that  mind;  and  the  reality  of  it  will 
always  be  a  fact,  depending  like  every  other  fact 
upon  evidence ;  to  be  received  or  rejected  as  the 
evidence  is  perceived  to  be  satisfactory  or  not. 

It  will  not,  I  presume,  be  pretended,  that  the 
direct  influence  of  the  spirit  of  God  upon  the  mind  is 
of  such  a  nature,  that  men  can  be  conscious  of  it  at  the 


Ill 

time,  so  as  to  distinguish  it  with  certainty  from  the 
natural  operations  of  the  mind  under  the  influence  of 
external  circumstances,  and  the  variety  of  motives, 
which  are  presented  to  it.  There  can  then  be  no 
evidence  of  it  in  any  particular  instance.  Our  proof 
of  the  doctrine  must  be  drawn,  not  from  experience 
or  observation,  but  solely  from  those  texts  of  scrip- 
ture, which  are  supposed  to  assert  it ;  and  those 
are  to  be  subjected  to  just  rules  of  interpretation, 
in  order  to  ascertain,  whether  that,  and  that  only, 
can  have  been  the  meaning  of  the  spirit  that  dic- 
tated them. 

But  without  any  immediate  and  direct  influence 
upon  the  mind,  the  most  important  effects  may  be 
produced,  and  changes  brought  about  within  us,  by 
a  variety  of  instruments  and  means,  in  a  manner 
analogous  to  that,  in  which  all  the  great  purposes 
of  God  are  accomplished  in  the  natural  and  moral 
world.  God  is  to  be  acknowledged,  his  hand  is  to 
be  seen,  the  operations  of  his  spirit  appear  in  all 
the  events  that  take  place.  Yet  not  a  direct  and 
immediate  agency  is  to  be  perceived.  Instruments 
and  means  are  employed,  but  the  hand  that  employs 
them  is  unseen.  Not  seldom  a  long  and  circuitous 
train  of  them,  the  connexions  and  combinations  of 
which  it  is  not  in  our  power  to  trace,  conceals  from 
our  view  the  spirit  that  guides,  and  the  power  that 
eflects  the  whole. 

Nor  is  it  only  great  events,  and  the  accomplish- 
ment of  great  purposes,  that  we  are  to  trace  to  the 
agency  of  the  spirit  of  God.  It  extends  not  less  to 
the  common  provisions  and  constant  occurrences  of 


112 

life  ;  to  the  food  by  which  our  life  is  supported,  and 
every  provision  by  which  it  is  made  comfortable. 
These  are  the  gift  of  God  ;  not  directly,  not  inde- 
pendently of  our  exertions,  nor  without  the  exer- 
tions of  others,  but  by  employing  them  both.  God 
is  also  the  preserver  of  our  lives,  and  is  to  be  so 
acknowledged  in  all  the  common,  as  well  as  the 
uncommon  exigences  of  our  being.  Not,  however, 
by  immediate  acts  of  power,  and  a  direct  agency, 
is  this  done,  but  by  the  instrumentality  of  an  iniin- 
»  ite  variety  and  complicated  system  of  means.  Of 
these  means,  our  own  exertions,  and  the  assistance 
of  others,  constitute  an  essential,  and  a  principal 
part.  If  they  are  neglected  or  withheld,  the  pro- 
tecting care  of  heaven  is  withheld.  We  perish.  A 
miracle  is  not  wrought  to  save  him,  who  takes  no 
care  to  save  himself. 

It  is  in  a  similar  manner,  by  instruments  and 
means,  not  by  a  direct  action  upon  the  mind,  that 
the  spirit  of  God  produces  its  great  eifects  in 
bringing  men  to  repentance,  holiness,  and  virtue. 
Among  these,  the  most  important  are  the  instruc- 
tions of  the  holy  scriptures.  *^  The  word  of  God 
(1  Pet.  i.  23)  is  the  incorruptible  seed,  by  which 
men  are  born  again."  Whatever  good  influences 
are  produced  by  it,  are  influences  of  the  spirit  of 
God.  The  same  may  be  said  of  Christian  institu- 
tions, religious  assemblies,  public  worship.  The 
usual  course  of  providence,  but  especially  deviations 
from  it  in  remarkable  events  and  uncommon  phe- 
nomena, are  means  for  accomplishing  the  same 
purposes.  The  same  also  is  to  be  said  of  the  priest- 


113 

hood^  religious  rites,  and  prophetic  office  under  the 
former  dispensation,  and  the  Christian  ministry, 
and  the  whole  system  of  written  and  oral  instruc- 
tion under  the  present.  And  those  who  are  thus 
employed  in  '^  converting  sinners  from  the  error  of 
their  ways,  and  turning  many  to  righteousness," 
are  represented  as  ^^  ambassadors  of  Christ.''  They 
are  his  agents,  act  in  his  stead,  and,  whatever  effects 
are  produced,  they  are  the  proper  fruits  of  the 
spirit,  and  may  be  considered  as  the  work  of  that 
spirit,  which  projected  the  great  scheme,  and  which 
provides  for  and  directs  its  execution. 

Now,  were  there  nothing  more  direct  and  imme- 
diate, than  those  influences,  which  have  now  been 
mentioned,  there  would  be  enough  to  answer  to 
most  of  the  language  of  the  Bible  on  the  subject  ; 
enough  to  give  a  fair  and  important  meaning  to  all 
the  texts  alluded  to  by  Dr.  Woods,  (p.  107)  Those 
are  the  instruments  and  means  by  which  God 
is  constantly  ^*  working  in  men  both  to  will  and 
to  do  j  creating  in  them  a  new  heart  and  a  new 
spirit ;  opening  their  eyes,  drawing,  turning,  re- 
newing, sti'engthening  them,  helping  their  infirmi- 
ties." 

All  that  is  said  to  show,  that  a  divine  influence 
upon  the  mind  may  be  consistent  with  human  liberty 
and  proper  activity,  is  to  no  purpose  ;  for  neither 
the  reality  of  a  divine  influence,  nor  its  consistency 
with  human  liberty  and  activity  is  denied.  That 
is  not  the  question  in  dispute  between  Unitarians 
and  Calvinists.  The  question  is,  whether  the 
doctrine  of  divine  influence,  in  the  peculiar  sense  in    4 


114 

which  it  is  held  by  Calvinists,  is  consistent  with 
human  liberty  and  activity.  Nor  is  it  whether 
they  affirm  it  to  be  so,  but  whether  it  can  be  shown 
to  be  so  in  reality. 

It  is  in  vain  that  Dr.  Woods  has  blended  to- 
gether and  confounded  the  general  doctrine  of  divine 
influence,  which  is  held  by  Christians  in  common, 
with  the  peculiar  doctrine  of  Calvinism  respecting 
special  irresistible  grace.  In  vain  has  he  softened 
down  the  offensive  features  of  the  system,  and 
explained  away,  or  endeavoured  to  give  an  unex- 
ceptionable meaning  to  the  terms  irresistible,  over- 
powering,  invincible,  used  by  the  Orthodox  in  rela- 
tion to  the  subject.  The  import  of  these  terms  is 
to  be  found  in  the  known  and  avowed  doctrines  of 
Calvinism,  as  they  are  stated  by  the  most  approved 
writers,  and  in  the  Confessions  of  Faith  deliberately 
drawn  up  by  Councils,  and  received  by  churches, 
which  profess  to  make  the  Calvinistic  faith  their 
standard. 

Now,  according  to  these,  *^^  all  those,  whom  God 
hath  predestinated  to  life,  arid  those  only,  he  is 
pleased  in  his  appointed  time,  effectually  to  call  by 
his  word  and  spirit,  out  of  that  state  of  sin  and  death 
in  which  they  are  by  nature,  to  grace  and  salvation 
by  Jesus  Christ." — "  This  effectual  call  is  of  God's 
free  and  special  grace  alone  ;  not  from  any  thing  at 
all  foreseen  in  man,  who  is  altogether  passive 
therein,  until,  being  quickened  and  renewed  by  the 
holy  spirit,  he  is  tliereby  enabled  to  answer  this 
call.'' — *•  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  re- 
generated and  saved  by  Christ,  so  also  are  all  other 


115 

elect  persons,  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly 
called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word.'" — '•  Others  not 
elected,  although  they  may  be  called  by  the  ministry 
of  the  word,  and  may  have  some  common  operations 
of  the  spirit,  yet  they  never  truly  come  to  Christ, 
and  therefore  cannot  be  saved.  Much  less  can  men, 
not  professing  the  Christian  religion,  be  saved  in 
any  other  way  whatever,  be  they  never  so  diligent 
to  frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature, 
and  the  law  of  that  religion  they  do  profess.'^ 
(Westminster  Confession.) 

In  the  above  extracts  from  an  instrument  of  high 

authority,  we  have  a  clear  and  distinct  statement  of 

the  orthodox  doctrine  respecting  that  influence  of 

the  spirit,  by  which  regeneration   is  effected  ;  and 

by  which  alone  men  can  be  brought  out  of  that  state 

of  sin  and  death  in  which  they  are  by  nature,  and 

brought  into  a  state  of  salvation.     It  is  an  influence 

confined  to  the  elect ;  granted  exclusively  to  those, 

who  are  predestinated  to  eternal  life ;  granted  to 

them   also  in  a   perfectly   arbitrary   manner;  not 

being  on  account  of  any  thing  foreseen  in  them,  still 

less  on  account  of  any  thing  already  in  them  ;  since^^ 

until  it   takes  place,  they  are,    according   to   this 

scheme,  in  a  state  of  sin  and  death,  wholly  inclined 

to  evil,  and  indisposed  to  all  good.     In  those,  upon 

whom  this  influence  is  exerted,  its  effects  take  place 

without   any  agency  or   cooperation   of  theirs,   for 

they  are  wholly  passive  in  it.     It  is  the  irresistible 

and  unaided  work  of  the  spirit  of  God,  which  man 

can  do  nothing  either  to  assist  or  to  prevent.    In  all 

those,  who  ai'e  the  subject  of  it,  it  is  effectual,  and 


116 

their  regeneration  and  final  salvation  are  sure. 
Those  to  whom  this  influence  is  denied,  or  from 
whom  it  is  withheld,  are  not  elected  :  and  they  can 
never  be  regenerated,  and  consequently  their  salva- 
tion is  impossible. 

It  will  be  objected,  perhaps,  that  the  Orthodox, 
though  they  receive  in  general  and  substantially 
the  doctrines  contained  in  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  Catechism,  yet  they  are  not 
satisfied  with  them  in  all  respects,  and  do  not 
subscribe  to  all  their  language. 

'To  this  objection  they  have  an  undoubted  right, 
and  Dr.  Woods,  as  their  representative,  has  a  right 
to  be  judged  upon  a  fair  construction  of  the  language, 
which  is  used  in  the  Creed  of  the  Theological  Insti- 
tution wath  which  he  is  connected  ;  and  that  which 
he  has  himself  used,  as  far  as  he  has  proceeded  in 
giving  a  statement  and  explanation  of  the  doctrine. 

But  little,  I  think,  will  be  gained  by  this  toward 
relieving  the  doctrine,  which  he  means  to  maintain, 
from  the  charges  which  are  brought  against  the 
orthodox  system  on  this  point. 

In  the  following  extracts  from  the  Creed  of  the 
Theological  Institution  at  Andover,  I  think  you  will 
find  every  important  idea  expressed  or  implied,  that 
is  to  be  found  in  the  passages  before  given  from  the 
Westminster  Confession.  ^'  By  nature  every  man 
is  personally  depraved,  destitute  of  holiness,  unlike 
and  opposed  to  God,  and  previously  to  the  renewing 
agency  of  the  divine  spirit,  all  his  moral  actions  are 
adverse  to  the  character  and  glory  of  God  ;  being 
morally  incapable  of  recovering  the  image  of  his 


117 

Creator,  which  was  lost  in  Adam,  every  man  is  justly 
exposed  to  eternal  damnation  ;  so  that  except  a  man 
be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God  ; 
....God,  of  his  mere  good  pleasure,  from  all  eternity 
elected  some  to  everlasting  life.... no  means  whatever 
can  change  the  heart  of  a  sinner,  and  make  it  holy 
....regeneration  and  sanctification  are  effects  of  the 
creating  and  renewing  agency  of  the  holy  spirit." 
A  cursory  reading  of  Dr.  Woods'  Letter  on  this 
subject  might  lead  to  an  impression  of  something 
short  of  the  doctrine  expressed  in   these  extracts  ; 
but  the  following  sentence,  taken  in  the  connexion 
in  which  it  is  used,  and  in  connexion  with  the  other 
doctrines  defended  in  his  Letters,  will  be  found,  I 
think,  to  express  or  imply  all  that   is  contained  in 
the  fuller  and  more  naked  and  undisguised  state- 
ment of  the  Westminster  Divines.     He  is  speaking 
of  the  meaning  of  the  words  irresistible,  overporver- 
ing,  as  used  by  orthodox  writers,  in  reference  to  the 
divine  influence  upon  the  minds  of  men,  when  he 
says  (p.  116,)  "  What  the  nature  of  the  disorder  is, 
God  knows,  and  is  perfectly  able  to  apply  a  suitable 
and  efficacious  remedy.     Now,  when  this  almighty 
Physician  kindly  undertakes  the  cure  of  our  souls, 
the  obstinacy  of  the  disorder  yields  ;  its  resistance 
is  taken  away  :  that  is  to  say,  the  heart  is  effectually 
cleansed  from  its  pollution  ;  love  of  sin,  enmity  to 
God,  pride,  ingratitude,  and  selfish,  earthly  desires 
are  subdued,  and  man  is  induced  to  love  God,  and 
obey  his  commands."    He  had  before  explained  the  __ 
orthodox  faith  in  general  by  saying  (p.  108,)  "  We     j 
believe,  that  all  virtue  or  holiness  in  man  is  to   be  ,  [/' 
15  4 


118 

ascribed  to  the  influence  of  the  divine  spirit,  and 
that  without  the  effectual  agency  of  the  spirit,  man 
would  have  no  holy  affections,  and  perform  no  acts 
of  holy  obedience." 

Now  what  is  the  disorder,  to  which  the  effica- 
cious remedy  is  to  be  applied  ;  and  for  which,  as 
we  shall  see,  there  is  no  other  cure  ?  If  we  look 
back  to  the  fifth  and  sixth  letters  of  Dr.  Woods,  we 
shall  find  it  described.  It  is  a  state  of  entire  moral 
corruption,  in  which  every  man  is  born  into  the 
world,  and  in  which  every  man  continues  until  he 
is  renewed  by  the  holy  spirit.  It  is,  that  men  are 
by  nature,  that  is,  as  they  came  first  from  the  hand 
of  the  Creator,  destitute  of  holiness ;  not  only  so, 
but  subjects  of  an  innate  moral  depravity,  from  the 
first  inclined  to  evil,  and  while  unrenewed,  their 
affections  and  actions  wholly  wrong.  This  is  the 
disease,  as  to  its  nature  and  extent. 

Passing  to  the  next  letters,  seventh  and  eighth, 
we  are  told  to  whom,  and  on  what  ground,  a  cure  is 
applied.  Those,  who  are  to  be  delivered  from 
this  moral  bondage,  this  original  state  of  depravity, 
to  be  regenerated,  renewed,  and  saved,  are  selected 
from  the  mass  of  mankind  by  a  sovereign  act  of  the 
divine  will,  without  any  thing  in  them,  as  the  reason 
why  they  were  chosen,  rather  than  the  others,  who 
are  passed  by,  left  to  remain  in  sin,  and  to  perish 
for  ever. 

Being  thus  elected,  thus  predestinated  to  eternal 
life,  they  become  the  subjects  of  the  efficacious, 
renovating  influence,  under  consideration.  And 
when  this  "  almighty  Physician  undertakes  the  cure, 


119 

the  disorder  yields."  He  cannot  be  defeated.  He 
cannot  be  resisted.  The  fact  then  is,  that  all, 
whom  God  undertakes  to  renew,  all  to  whom  he 
applies  that  effectual  influence,  which  is  to  subdue 
the  obstinacy  of  the  disorder,  are  in  fact  renewed. 
The  love  of  sin  and  enmity  to  God  are  subdued, 
and  they  are  brought  to  the  love  of  God  and  obe- 
dience. And  this  effect  is  produced,  because  he 
who  knows  the  disorder  has  known  how  to  apply  a 
remedy ;  and  has  applied  one,  which  must  produce 
a  cure. 

It  follows,  then,  that  this  remedy  has  been 
applied  to  no  others.  Those  who  are  not  renewed 
have  none  of  this  influence  employed  upon  them  ; 
for  if  they  had,  they  also  would  have  been  renewed, 
since  this  influence  is  efiicacious,  cannot  be  resisted, 
cannot  be  defeated.  Their  failure  then  is  for  the 
want  of  that,  which  is  granted  to  the  others,  and 
without  which  it  was  impossible  for  them  to  be 
renewed  and  saved.  "  All  virtue,  all  holiness  in 
man  is  to  be  ascribed  to  this  efficacious  influence  ; 
without  it  man  would  have  no  holy  affections,  and 
would  perform  no  acts  of  holy  obedience."  (p.  108) 
Those,  then,  who  have  holiness  and  virtue,  have  it 
solely  in  consequence  of  their  having  this  influence, 
which  makes  them,  and  cannot  fail  to  make  them 
holy  j  and  those  who  have  none,  but  remain  unholy, 
sinful,  enemies  to  God,  are  destitute  of  it  solely 
because  they  have  not  that  influence,  which,  if  they 
had,  could  not  fail  to  produce  the  same  effect  in 
them,  which  it  has  produced  in  others.  This  is  but 
a  fair  and  full,  unexaggerated  development  of  the 


120 

doctrine,  according  to  Dr.  Woods'  own  statement 
of  it.  And  whether  it  he  not  in  every  point  the 
same  as  that  which  is  more  clearly  stated  in  the 
Westminster  Confession,  every  one  can  judge. 

From  the  doctrine,  thus  stated.  Unitarians,  I 
helieve,  generally  dissent,  and  maintain  a  very 
diiferent  opinion  on  the  subject.  They  dissent, 
because  they  think  it  inconsistent  with  all  the  rep- 
resentations we  have  in  the  scriptures  of  the  moral 
character  of  God,  and  with  the  condition  of  man, 
as  a  free  and  accountable  being  ; — inconsistent  with 
all  those  texts,  which  complain  of  the  sins  of  men ; 
because,  by  the  supposition,  they  act  only  accord- 
ing to  the  nature  given  them,  and  could  not  act 
otherwise  without  assistance  and  influence,  which 
are  not  given  to  them  ; — inconsistent  with  all  the 
commands  of  the  Gospel  to  believe,  repent,  be  re- 
newed, and  to  love  God  with  the  whole  heart ;  since 
they  have  no  ability  to  do  any  part  of  this,  till 
almighty  power  is  exerted  to  make  them  willing  ; 
and  it  is  equally  impossible  for  them  not  to  do  it, 
when  this  power  is  exerted  ; — inconsistent  with  the 
sincerity  of  all  exhortations,  encouragements,  and 
promises  to  the  exertions  of  men,  since  it  supposes 
them  incapable  of  willing  to  perform  either  of  these 
acts  ;  that  it  is  not  of  themselves  to  will  any  thing 
good,  but  they  depend  for  it  on  an  influence,  over 
w  hich  they  have  no  control,  and  which  they  can  do 
nothing  to  procure. 

Taking  this  doctrine  of  an  efficacious  influence, 
without  which  there  can  be  no  holy  affection,  and 
tio  act  of  holy  obedience,  in  connexion  with  the 


121 

whole  scheme  of  doctrine,  of  wliich  it  makes  an 
essential  part ;  we  are  unable  to  reconcile  it  with 
the  paternal  character  of  God,  or  a  righteous  gov- 
ernment, or  to  perceive  how  it  can  consist  with  a 
moral  accountability.  We  are  unable  to  see  how 
the  character  of  God  can  be  vindicated,  in  creating ' 
beings  with  a  nature  totally  depraved,  inclined  only 
to  evil,  demanding  of  them  holiness,  which  they 
are  utterly  unable  to  exercise,  without  an  irresistible 
influence  in  renewing  their  hearts,  and  giving  them 
right  dispositions  and  desires ;  which  influence  he 
grants  to  some,  and  denies  to  others,  without  any 
difl'erence  in  them  as  the  ground  or  reason  of  the 
distinction  ;  and  punishing  those  for  not  exercising 
this  holiness,  to  whom  he  had  never  granted  the 
assistance,  without  which  it  was  never  possible  to 
them.  And  we  are  equally  unable  to  see  how  those 
could  be  accountable  for  their  actions,  and  the 
subjects  of  reasonable  blame  for  their  unholy  and 
wicked  lives,  who  were  brought  into  being  with 
hearts  totally  corrupt,  inclined  to  evil,  and  evil 
only,  and  from  whom  that  efficacious  renovating 
influence  has  been  withheld,  without  which  it  w^as 
never  possible  for  them  to  be  renewed,  to  ^^have 
any  holy  aff'ections,  or  to  perform  any  acts  of  holy_ 
obedience.''  The  sinner  seems  upon  this  scheme  \ 
to  have  a  perfect  apology  to  offer  for  his  continuing 
in  sin  ;  a  complete  and  satisfactory  excuse  for  every 
defect  and  for  every  crime,  however  numerous,  and 
however  great. 

It  may  be  useful  to  give  you  a  distinct  statement 
of  the  several  points,  in  which  our  views  upon  this 


122 

subject  are  at  variance  with  those,  which  we  find 
advocated  by  Dr.  Woods.  In  the  first  place,  a 
difi"erent  account  of  the  moral  nature  of  man,  and 
his  character  and  disposition,  as  he  comes  from 
the  hand  of  the  Creator,  leads  to  a  different  opinion 
correspondent  to  it,  of  what  is  necessary,  in  order 
to  his  becoming  holy,  and  a  fit  subject  of  the  appro- 
bation and  favour  of  the  Author  of  his  being.  Not 
seeing  in  him  a  nature  wholly  corrupt,  inclined 
only  to  evil,  and  an  enemy  of  God,  we  perceive  no 
necessity  for  an  almighty,  irresistible  influence  to 
be  employed  for  the  purpose  of  producing  an  entire 
change  of  nature,  opposite  inclinations,  dispositions, 
and  course  of  action  from  those,  to  which  he  was 
directed  by  his  natural  constitution.  Believing 
him  to  possess  faculties  and  affections,  equally 
capable  of  a  right  and  a  wrong  direction,  neither 
morally  good  nor  bad  by  nature,  but  equally  capable 
of  becoming  either,  we  see  a  moral  discipline  under 
which  he  is  placed,  adapted  to  such  a  nature,  such 
capacities,  and  such  dispositions.  The  influence 
and  agency  of  the  spirit  of  God  is  to  be  acknowl- 
edged in  the  whole  of  that  discipline  which  is  in- 
tended to  improve,  exalt,  and  perfect  our  nature, 
or  to  correct  any  wrong  tendencies  it  may  have 
acquired,  and  restore  it  to  a  right  direction,  and  its 
previous  purity. 

In  this  light  are  to  be  viewed  all  the  means  and 
the  motives  of  religion,  the  institutions  of  society, 
the  course  of  providence,  events  calculated  to  lead 
to  reflection,  to  produce  seriousness,  to  give  us 
just  views  of  our  nature,  condition,  duty,  prospects, 


123 

and  hopes  ;  what  we  are,  and  what  we  ought  to  be, 
or  are  designed  to  be.  Whatever  is  adapted  to 
subdue  the  power  of  sin,  to  control  the  bad  passions, 
and  to  bring  us  to  the  love  of  holiness,  and  the 
practice  of  every  virtue.  In  all  this  the  agency  of 
God  is  to  be  acknowledged,  as  the  purposes  of  God 
are  to  be  perceived.  Not  a  direct  and  immediate 
agency,  but  such  as  we  see  exercised  in  every  thing 
else  through  the  universe  ;  God  bringing  about  his 
ends  by  a  variety  of  means,  and  employing  in  them 
the  subordinate  agency  and  instrumentality  of  his 
creatures. 

It  is  by  such  means,  that  the  spirit  of  God  pro- 
duces its  great  moral  effects,  operates  on  the  minds 
and  hearts  of  men,  reconciles  them  to  God,  works 
in  them  to  will  and  to  do  his  good  pleasure.  These 
influences  are  distributed  to  men  in  very  unequal 
measure,  and  with  infinite  variety,  as  to  kind  and 
degree.  The  impartiality  of  the  common  parent  is 
manifested,  not  in  employing  the  same  means  with 
all,  and  exerting  upon  all  the  same  influence,  but 
by  rendering  to  all  according  to  the  manner  in 
which  they  act  under  the  influence  that  is  employed 
upon  them,  whatever  that  may  be,  as  to  kind  and 
degree  ;  not  in  giving  to  all  the  same  number  of 
talents,  and  of  the  same  value,for  use ;  but  render- 
ing to  all  according  to  the  use  they  make  of  their 
talents,  whether  few  or  many.  And  here  they  find 
room  for  the  particular  and  perhaps  direct  and 
immediate  influence  of  the  spirit  upon  those,  who 
have  made  a  good  use  of  common  privileges,  upon 
the  principle,  that  "  to  him  that  hatlij  more  shall  be 


124 

piven."  More  shall  be  given  to  him,  who  has  made 
a  good  use  of  that  which  he  haS;,  whether  much  or 
little. 

Accordingly,  Unitarians  generally  do  not  reject 
the  notion  of  a  direct  and  immediate  influence  of 
the  spirit  of  God  on  the  human  mind.  They  believe 
that  there  may  be  circumstances  of  great  trial, 
strong  temptation  and  peculiar  difficulty,  that  call 
for  extraordinary  assistance,  and  that  those  who 
have  manifested  a  disposition  to  make  a  good  use 
of  the  ordinary  means  afforded,  will  have  further 
aid  suited  to  their  exigences,  and  sufficient  by  a 
proper  use  to  ansv.er  to  their  necessities.  They 
suppose  also  that  any  extraordinary  assistance  will 
be  granted  only  to  those,  who  ask  it ;  that  it  will 
be  granted  to  previous  good  disposition,  and  a  sense 
of  need  and  dependance.  That  God  will  give  the 
holy  spirit  to  them  who  ask,  to  them  who  have 
already  right  feelings,  are  sensible  of  their  weakness 
and  wants,  and  ask  the  mercy  of  God  to  supply 
them- 


125 

LETTER  VII. 

I  now  follow  Dr.  Woods  in  calling  your  attention 
to  a  few  remarks  on  the  injiuence  and  moral  tendency 
of  the  Unitarian  compared  with  the  Trinitarian 
and  Calvinistic  scheme ;  premising  however  the 
caution,  that  we  must  not  confound,  in  our  exam- 
ination, as  is  too  apt  to  be  done,  the  moral  tendency 
with  the  effects  actually  produced  ;  and  that  even 
when  this  error  is  not  committed,  too  much  weight 
is  not  to  be  given  to  any  argument  drawn  from  such 
a  comparison  on  either  side.  The  reason  is,  that 
mankind  are  less  influenced  in  their  conduct  by 
their  speculative  opinions,  and  the  character  of 
their  faith,  than  we  are  ready  to  imagine.  Were 
we  purely  intellectual  beings,  governed  wholly  by 
reason,  there  would  be  no  such  uncertainty  or  falla- 
cy in  our  deductions.  We  could  calculate  with 
certainty  how  men  would  act,  by  knowing  what  they 
believed ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  what  was  the 
character  of  their  faith,  by  their  course  of  life. 
But  men  have  also  passions  and  affections,  on  the 
one  hand ;  and  these  not  only  serve  to  corrupt 
and  pervert  the  understanding,  but  where  they  fail 
to  do  this,  they  yet  are  able  to  overpower  the  will, 
so  as  to  lead  them  to  act  in  opposition  to  reason 
and  faith  ; — and  on  the  other  hand  they  have  con- 
science and  a  moral  sense,  which,  however  the 
understanding  may  have  been  blinded,  or  misled, 
or  perverted,  will  sometimes  preserve  them  in  a 
right  course  of  conduct,  in  defiance  of  an  absurd  or 
16 


126 

a  corrupting  faith.  Still  there  is  a  general  influence 
of  right  views  and  a  pure  faith,  which  is  not  incon- 
siderable, nor  uncertain. 

But  when  we  come  to  speak  of  the  practical 
influence  of  different  forms  of  christian  faith,  we  are 
to  take  into  our  consideration,  that  there  are  cer- 
tain great  principles,  and  those  the  most  fundamen- 
tal, and  influential  upon  the  conduct  of  life,  which 
the  several  sects  of  Christians  hold  in  common.  So 
that  great  as  the  difference  is  between  the  Unitarian 
and  the  Trinitarian  faith ;  on  account  of  the  funda- 
mental principles  held  in  common,  the  difference 
of  their  practical  tendency  is  less,  probably,  than 
ardent  and  zealous  partizans  on  either  side  are 
ready  to  imagine.  Still,  however,  it  is  believed 
that  the  difference  in  several  respects  cannot  be 
very  small. 

I  am  ready  to  accede  to  the  statement  implied 
in  what  is  said  by  Dr.  Woods,  pp.  135 — 141  ;  that 
the  practical  influence  of  a  scheme  of  faith  will  bear 
some  proportion  to  the  exhibition  it  gives,  ^^of  a 
being  of  infinite  perfection  as  the  object  of  worship; 
a  moral  government  marked  with  holiness  and 
righteousness  throughout ;  and  the  manner  in  which 
mercy  is  exercised  toward  offenders  under  this 
government." 

These  are  the  great  points,  upon  which  the 
Unitarian  and  Calvinistic  doctrine  are  at  variance, 
and  with  this  difference  in  view,  Dr.  Woods  en- 
deavours to  show  the  favourable  influence  of  the 
tatter  above  the  former  in  several  respects. 

In  the  first  place,  with  respect  to  love  to  God, 


127 

Now  it  will  be  sufficient  to  remark  on  this  point, 
that  the  practical  influence  of  a  doctrine  will  de- 
pend, not  on  the  words  in  which  it  is  expressed, 
but  on  the  images,  which  are  presented  to  the  mind. 
However  we  may  speak  in  words  of  the  perfect 
justice,  benevolence,  and  mercy  of  God ;  our  feel- 
ings and  affections  will  wholly  follow  the  images  in 
which  he  is  presented  to  us  in  the  dispositions 
towards  his  creatures,  and  the  actions  respecting 
them,  which  are  attributed  to  him.  If  those  are 
such,  as  in  any  other  being  would  be  thought  arbi- 
trary, or  unjust,  or  cruel ;  it  will  be  in  vain  for  us 
to  speak  of  them  in  words,  that  express  all  the 
kindness  and  benignity  of  the  paternal  character. 
The  question  then  will  be,  not  what  are  the  epithets 
which  the  two  systems  apply  to  God,  for  they  both 
apply  the  same  ;  but  what  are  the  actions  they 
attribute  to  him,  what  the  images,  under  which 
they  present  him,  what  the  principles  and  measures 
of  his  government  ?  In  these  respects  enough  has 
before  been  said  to  show  how  the  comparison  will 
stand. 

Love  to  Christ,  and  the  value  at  which  we  esti- 
mate the  benefits  we  receive  through  him,  will 
depend  on  our  view  of  the  nature  and  value  of  those 
benefits,  and  not  at  all  on  the  rank  he  holds  in  the 
scale  of  being.  Unitarian  views  indeed  ascribing 
to  him  only  what  he  claimed  himself,  derived  excel- 
lences, and  a  subordinate  agency,  will  not  allow  us 
to  give  him  the  supremacy  of  affection,  any  more 
than  the  glory,  which  was  due  to  God  only.  It 
teaches  us  to  love  him^  to  be  grateful  to  him,  and 


128 

trust  in  him,  as  him  who  was  appointed  by  the 
Father  to  execute  his  purposes  of  benevolence ; 
and  who  voUintarily  did  and  suffered  all  that  was 
necessary  to  procure  for  us  the  forgiveness  of  sin, 
reconciliation  with  God,  and  eternal  life.  These  are 
"benefits,  with  which  nothing  that  is  done  by  any 
other  finite  being  can  bear  any  comparison ;  they 
are  such  as  entitle  him  to  affection,  and  gratitude, 
and  trust ;  such  as  we  owe,  and  can  owe  to  no 
other  being,  but  to  "  his  Father  and  our  Father,  his 
God  and  our  God." 

Unitarians  are  unable,  indeed  t/>  express  these 
sentiments  in  the  language  applied  by  Dr.  Woods, 
p.  145.  Such  expressions  of  confidence  and  trust 
they  can  apply  to  God  only.  They  have  but  one 
object  of  supreme  trust  and  dependence.  Were 
they  to  make  Jesus  Christ  that  object,  they  would 
fear  to  incur  the  rebuke,  which  the  prophet  received 
from  the  angel  before  whom  he  fell  down  to  worship, 
^^  See  thou  do  it  not,  I  am  thy  fellow-servant,  wor- 
ship God."  I  am  ready  therefore  to  answer  to  the 
questions,  with  which  Dr.  Woods  closes  the  para- 
graph which  relates  to  faith  in  Christ,  (p.  165) 
^^  Does  the  Unitarian  system  teach  any  thing  like 
this  ?  Does  such  a  faith  spring  from  the  principles 
which  it  inculcates?"  to  say  no  !  Most  of  what  is 
there  said.  Unitarians  would  apply  to  God,  but  not 
to  Christ.  We  find  nothing  in  the  Bible  to  justify 
us  in  transferring  our  supreme  confidence  and  trust 
from  God  to  Christ.  It  is  accordingly  the  power 
and  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God,  which  inspire 
us  with  humble  and  joyful  hope  5    and  which  put 


129 

our  hearts  at  rest  respecting  the  important  con- 
cerns of  the  creation.  It  is  to  his  care,  that  we 
cheerfully  and  entirely  commit  our  interests,  tem- 
poral and  eternal.  It  is  in  him  that  we  trust  for  all 
that  is  necessary  to  purify  our  hearts,  to  guide  and 
protect  us  during  our  pilgrimage,  to  comfort  us  in 
affliction,  and  to  give  us  peace  and  triumph  in  the 
prospect  of  death.  In  these  great  interests  and 
concerns,  we  cannot  consent,  and  we  do  not  find 
ourselves  taught,  to  leave  our  heavenly  Father 
wholly  out  of  the  account. 

The  tendency  of  any  scheme  of  doctrine  to  pro- 
duce the  dread  of  sin,  and  a  watchful  care  to  obey 
the  divine  -precepts,  will  depend  essentially  on  the 
view  it  presents  of  the  rewards  and  punishments 
prepared  for  men  in  another  life,  the  heaven  it  pro- 
vides, and  the  hell  it  reveals.  Now  it  is  not  a  little 
remarkable,  that  Dr.  Woods  should  claim  an  advan- 
tage, in  point  of  moral  influence  to  the  orthodox 
faith,  on  the  ground  that  '^  it  contemplates  a  state 
of  higher  perfection  and  purer  and  more  elevated 
enjoyment,  than  the  Unitarian  describes."  (p.  146) 
And  "  that  the  contemplation  of  a  future  reward,  to 
be  obtained  by  virtuous  efforts,  must  evidently  tend 
to  excite  those  eiforts,  very  much  in  proportion  to 
the  greatness  and  excellency  of  that  reward.'' 

For,  besides  that  the  claim  of  higher  perfection 
and  greater  purity  is  without  any  foundation  to 
justify  it;  upon  what  ground  can  he  speak  of  a 
future  reward  to  be  obtained  "  by  virtuous  efforts?^' 
The  reader  has  not  forgotten,  that  the  sinner  has 
no  encouragement  to   virtuous  efforts :  "  That  no 


130 

works  of  righteousness,  and  no  accomplishments  or 
disposition  must  ever  be  named  in  the  presence  of 
God.... that  the  only  righteousness,  which  is  to  be 
the  foundation  of  hope  to  men,  is  a  perfect  right- 
eousness which  God  has  provided. ...that  we  must 
rely  on  the  atoning  blood  of  Christ  as  the  sole 
ground  of  forgiveness." 

Unitarians  may  be  allowed  to  speak  of  the  mo- 
tives to  virtuous  efforts  arising  from  the  future 
rewards  to  be  obtained  by  them ;  but  with  what 
propriety  can  the  Calvinist  do  this,  who  believes, 
that  the  future  condition  of  men  is  determined  from 
eternity  by  an  irreversible  decree ;  that  by  nature 
they  are  totally  depraved  and  inclined  only  to  evil ; 
that  they  remain  so  till  brought  out  of  that  state  by 
regeneration,  and  that  regeneration  is  effected  only 
by  the  special  irresistible  influence  of  the  spirit  of 
God,  granted  only  to  the  elect,  and  to  them,  not  on 
account  of  any  disposition  or  efforts  of  theirs,  which 
have  any  tendency  to  produce  or  to  procure  it  ? 

And  as  to  the  influence  of  the  different  views  of 
future  punishment ; — it  might  at  first  be  thought, 
that  the  advantage  were  on  the  side  of  those  of 
Calvinism  ;  but  there  are  two  considerations  that 
convince  me  to  the  contrary.  For,  in  the  first 
place,  the  punishments,  as  well  as  the  rewards 
provided  by  that  scheme,  are  administered  on  the 
principles  of  a  sovereign,  unconditional  election  ; 
the  desert  of  punishment,  and  consequently  the 
punishment  itself,  not  being  subject  to  any  human 
efforts,  but  following  necessarily  the  divine  decree. 
!Pad  men  may  be  expected  to  avail  themselves  of 


131 

the  plea  of  a  moral  inability,  which,  to  all  practical 
purposes,  is  in  fact  the  same  as  a  natural  inability, 
or  physical  coercion.     They  may  be  expected  to  go 
on  quietly  in  the  course  of  vice  in  the  persuasion, 
that  if  they  are  not  predestinated  to  holiness  and 
eternal  life,  no  efforts  of  theirs  can  avail  them  ;  and 
if  they  are,  God  will,  in  his  own  time,  draw  them  to 
him  by  his  effectual,  irresistible  grace  ;  that  nothing, 
which  they  can  do,  till  thus  regenerated,  will  have 
any  tendency  to  bring  about  this  effect,  or  prepare 
them    for   it ;  on  the   contrary,   that  they  are  as 
likely,  I  believe  they  are  sometimes  told  more  likely, 
to   be    thus  arrested  by  sovereign  grace  in  the  full 
career  of  wickedness,  than  when   using  endeavours 
to  recover  themselves  out  of  the  hands  of  Satan  by 
their  own  strength.     This  reasoning,  and  I  cannot 
see  that  it  does  not  proceed  fairly  on  the  acknowl- 
edged principles  of  Calvinism,  must  check,  instead 
of  encouraging  the  efforts  of  wicked  men  to  disen- 
tangle themselves  from  the  snare  of  the  devil. 

In  the  second  place,  we  are  to  look  for  the 
efficacy  of  punishment  and  its  moral  influence  in 
preventing  sin,  or  reclaiming  men  from  it,  not  to  the 
degree  of  its  severity  and  duration  only,  but  to  its 
certainty,  and  the  evidence  brought  home  distinctly 
to  the  minds  of  men  of  its  certainty.  Now,  if  you 
endeavour  to  enhance  the  fear  of  punishment,  by 
representations  of  its  severity,  or  of  its  duration  far 
disproportioned  to  what  can  be  the  apprehension 
of  the  demerit,  to  which  it  is  to  be  applied  ;  if  you 
carry  it  beyond  the  bounds  of  probability,  that  the 
threat  will  be  executed ;    if  it  be  such,  that  to  9 


132 

reflecting  mind  it  is  impossible  it  should  be  executed 
by  a  just,  and  good,  and  merciful  being,  the  Parent 
of  the  creation  ;  you  weaken  its  effects  as  a  motive, 
you  lose  in  probability,  and  the  firmness  of  faith, 
more  than  you  gain  in  the  force  of  fear.  You  excite 
a  vague  and  indistinct  terror  and  dread  ;  but  so 
mingled  with  incredulity,  arising  from  a  natural  and 
unconquerable  sense  of  the  essential  kindness  and 
benignity  of  the  Author  of  nature,  as  to  impair,  if 
not  destroy  its  practical  effects. 

The  surest  and  highest,  the  purest  and  most 
permanent  influence  will  be  that,  which  arises  from 
such  views  of  the  future  punishment  awaiting  the 
wicked,  as  are  consistent  with  the  character  of  a 
Sovereign  of  the  world,  who  has  nothing  vindictive 
in  his  nature,  who  adjusts  punishment  to  the  degree 
of  demerit,  who  inflicts  it  solely  for  the  purpose  of 
promoting  holiness,  and  accomplishing  the  purposes 
of  his  moral  government,  and  only  to  the  degree 
which  these  purposes  require,  and  so  long  as  they 
require  it. 

From  these  considerations,  I  am  persuaded  that 
the  moral  influence  of  the  views  of  future  reward 
and  punishment,  maintained  generally  by  Unitarians, 
is  far  more  certain,  and  powerful,  and  salutary,  and 
purifying,  than  that  which  is  the  result  of  the 
orthodox  views  on  this  subject.  And  I  am  persuaded 
of  this  by  another  consideration  still.  It  is  this  : — 
the  virtue  that  is  produced  by  cheerful  views,  and 
by  the  contemplation  of  kindness,  benevolence,  and 
iuercy  in  God,  is  of  a  more  pure,  generous,  and 
elevated  kind,   than  that  which  arises  from  cold, 


133 

austere,  and  gloomy  views,  and  the  contemplation 
of  severe,  unrelenting,  vindictive  justice,  and  the 
execution  of  eternal  wrath. 

Unitarians  believe  that  the  representations  in 
scripture  of  the  future  punishment  of  the  impeni- 
tent wicked  are,  for  the  purpose  of  impression, 
highly  figurative  ;  but  they  believe  that  the  figures, 
like  all  others  used  by  the  sacred  writers,  are  in- 
tended to  mean  something,  something  of  vast  mo- 
ment ;  that  in  degree  and  duration  it  will  be  such, 
as  is  calculated  to  produce  the  highest  practical 
influence.  In  either  respect  we  can  have  clear  and 
distinct  conceptions  only  to  a  certain  degree.  All 
beyond  that,  therefore,  can  add  nothing  to  the 
effect. 

Dr.  Woods   proceeds   to   a   comparison  of  the 
different  influences  of  the    systems  in  question,  as 
respects  reverence  for  the  word  of  God.     To  show 
that  Unitarians  have  little  reverence  for  the  scrip- 
tures,   and  treat   the   sacred    writings   with   little 
respect,  he    asserts  (p.  148,)    that,   "  the   grand 
maxim   of  the   Polish  Socinians  was,  that  reason  is 
our  ultimate  rule  and  standard,  and  that  whatever 
in  religion  is  not  conformed  to  this,  is  to  be  rejected. 
This  maxim,  as  they  understood  it,  gave  them  per- 
fect liberty  to  alter  or  set  aside   the   obvious  sense 
of  the  bible,  whenever   it  did   not  agree  with  the 
deductions  of  reason.    Unitarians,  in  general,  have, 
with   more   or   less   decision,    adopted    the    same 
maxim."      The   impression   intended   here  to   be 
made   on   the   reader  must  be,  that  "  Unitarians, 
generally,   think   themselves   at   perfect  liberty  to 
17 


134 

alter  or  set  aside  the  obvious  sense  of  the  bible,  when- 
ever it  does  not  agree  with  the  deductions  of  rea- 
son.'^  Dr.  Woods  has  not  seen  fit  to  refer  us  to  his 
authority  for  the  assertion,  as  respects  the  Polish 
Socinians.  This  it  was  his  duty  to  do,  in  laying 
against  them  a  charge  of  so  serious  a  nature,  that 
the  reader  might  be  able  to  judge  of  its  justice. 
What  authority  he  may  be  able  to  produce,  I  know 
not.  But  I  presume  it  must  have  been  derived 
from  a  passage,  which  I  shall  subjoin,  which  is 
found  in  the  Racovian  Catechism,  which  contains  a 
summary  of  the  Socinian  doctrines,  as  drawn  up  by 
the  celebrated  Polish  Divines.  But  if  this  passage 
be  the  only  authority  to  which  he  will  appeal,  the 
charge  is  made  with  less  care,  than  were  to  have 
been  expected  of  one,  so  frequent  and  loud,  as  he  is, 
in  his  complaints  of  the  misrepresentations  and 
unfairness  of  adversaries.     The  passage  is  this — 

^'  By  what  means  may  the  more  obscure  passa- 
ges of  scripture  be  understood  ? 

'^  By  carefully  ascertaining  in  the  first  instance 
the  scope,  and  other  circumstances,  of  those  passa- 
ges, in  the  way  which  ought  to  be  pursued  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  language  of  all  other  written 
compositions.  Secondly,  by  an  attentive  comparison 
of  them  with  similar  phrases  and  sentences  of  less 
ambiguous  meaning.  Thirdly,  by  submitting  our 
interpretation  of  the  more  obscure  passages  to  the 
test  of  doctrines,  which  are  most  clearly  inculcated 
in  the  scriptures,  as  to  certain  first  principles ;  and 
admitting  nothing  that  disagrees  with  these.  And, 
lastly,  by  rejecting  every  interpretation,  which   is 


135 

repugnant  to  right  reason,  or  involves  a  contradic- 
tion/' 

The  reader  is  now  requested  to  compare  this 
with  the  assertion  of  Dr.  Woods,  and  to  judge  of 
the  fairness  of  the  representation.  The  principles 
of  interpretation,  as  here  stated,  are  such,  as  no 
Divine  of  any  school  will  at  the  present  day  call  in 
question.  They  are  such  as  Dr.  Woods  himself, 
I  will  venture  to  affirm,  continually  applies  in 
practice.  The  difference  between  him  and  the 
Polish  Divines  is  only  as  to  the  cases,  to  which  the 
principle  is  to  be  applied,  and  not  as  to  the  princi- 
ple itself.  A  thousand  instances  may  be  brought, 
in  which  Dr.  Woods  will  apply  the  principle  with- 
out hesitation.  No  one  will  reject  with  more 
decision  than  Dr.  Woods  the  obvious  meaning  of  all 
those  passages,  numerous  and  frequent  as  they  are, 
in  which  bodily  organs  and  human  passions  are 
ascribed  to  God.  He  will  exercise  his  reason  in 
the  interpretation  of  all  those  passages,  which  will 
teach  him  to  set  aside,  as  inadmissible,  the  plain, 
obvious,  and  literal  meaning  of  the  words  that  are 
used. 

Luke  xiv.  26.  Our  Saviour  says,  ^^  If  any  man 
hate  not  his  father,  and  mother,  and  wife,  and 
children,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea,  and  his 
own  life  also,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple."  Dr. 
W^oods,  I  trust,  will  be  slow  to  insist  on  the  plain 
and  obvious  sense  of  this  text,  as  the  true  meaning 
of  it.  He  will  doubtless  make  reason  his  guide,  in 
its  interpretation  ;  and  applying  his  knowledge  of 
oriental  idioms,  will  set  aside,  as  utterly  inadmissi- 


136 

ble,  the  literal  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  words  ; 
not  suspecting  that  he  is  thus  exposing  himself  to 
the  harsh  censure  from  some  less  enlightened  and 
liberal  interpreter  of  scripture,  of  taking  the  liberty 
to  alter  or  "  set  aside  the  obvious  sense  of  the 
Bible." 

Matt.  xxvi.  26,  28.  Our  Saviour  says,  ^^  This  is 
my  body, — this  is  my  blood  ;"  and  John  vi.  53, 
'^  Verily,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  except  ye  eat  the 
flesh  of  the  son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye 
have  no  life  in  you."  Dr.  Woods,  I  suppose,  will 
be  as  much  shocked  as  any  Polish  Divine  of  the 
whole  Socinian  school,  or  any  English  or  German 
Unitarian,  at  the  idea  of  adopting  the  obvious  sense 
of  these  expressions,  as  the  real  meaning  of  him 
who  uttered  them.  Nor  will  he  much  regard  the 
honest  Catholic,  who,  pressing  him  with  the  literal 
meaning  of  the  words,  charges  him  with  perverting 
the  scriptures,  and  destroying  their  authority  by 
thus  subjecting  them  to  reason  in  their  interpreta- 
tion. But  why  thus  shocked,  and  why  not  adhere 
to  the  literal  sense  with  the  Catholic,  unless  the 
principle  be  admitted,  that  reason  is  to  be  employed 
in  the  interpretation  of  scripture  ?  Unless  calling 
to  its  aid  all  the  resources  of  learning,  experience, 
and  common  sense,  it  may  authorize  us  to  set  aside 
the  obvious  sense  by  supplying  us  with  proof,  that, 
in  any  given  case,  the  obvious  sense  cannot  be  the 
true  sense  ?  This  is  quite  a  different  thing  from 
such  an  arbitrary  alteration  of  the  word  of  God, 
or  setting  aside  its  true  meaning,  as  is  implied  in 
what  Dr.  Woods  has  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  Polish 
Socinians  and  modern  Unitarians. 


137 

But  who,  let  me  ask,  is  the  man  that  manifests 
the  truest  reverence  for  the  word  of  God  ?  Is  it  he, 
who  indolently  and  carelessly  takes  the  meaning 
that  first  presents  itself,  however  absurd,  or  con- 
tradictory, or  even  impossible  that  may  be  ;  or  he, 
who,  when  the  meaning  that  first  presents  itself  is 
attended  with  difficulty  or  doubt,  sets  himself  with 
patient  and  laborious  study  to  ascertain,  whether  it 
be  the  meaning  intended  by  the  writer  ;  a  meaning, 
which,  if  it  be  the  word  of  God,  will  certainly  con- 
tain neither  an  impossibility,  a  contradiction,  nor 
an  absurdity  ?  Is  it  he,  who,  without  suffering  his 
reason  to  judge  in  the  case,  accepts  the  meaning, 
which  has  been  assigned  to  it  in  an  age  of  ignorance 
and  superstition,  and  which  ecclesiastical  authority 
has  sanctioned,  enforced,  and  perpetuated ;  or  he, 
who,  using  his  own  reason,  instead  of  trusting  that 
of  another,  applies  all  the  helps  that  time,  and 
industry,  and  learning,  have  furnished,  to  the  dis- 
covery of  its  true  meaning? 

We  not  only  avow  the  principle,  that  reason  is 
to  be  our  guide  in  the  interpretation  of  scripture, 
but  we  declare  that  we  know  not  a  higher  act  of 
disrespect  and  irreverence  to  the  word  of  God,  than 
he  is  guilty  of,  who,  rejecting  the  free  use  of  rea- 
son in  its  interpretation,  exposes  it  to  contempt  by 
attributing  to  it  communications,  which  could  not 
have  been  made  by  the  same  God,  who  is  the  Au- 
thor of  our  reason.  We  profess  none  of  that  loyalty 
of  faith,  which  consists  in  implicit  subjection  to  the 
creed  of  a  master,  which  is  expressed  by  degrading 
and  undervaluing  our  reason,  or  refusing   its   use. 


138 

and  thus  becoming  prepared  to  receive  absurdities, 
contradictions,  and  impossibilities  for  divine  instruc- 
tions. We  think  it  to  be  doing  no  honour  to  our 
sacred  books  to  be  ready  to  believe  both  sides  of  a 
direct  contradiction,  because  we  think  that  we  find 
them  there.  We  are  satisfied,  from  the  very  cir- 
cumstance that  it  is  a  contradiction,  or  an  absurdity, 
that  we  must  have  misunderstood  what  we  there 
read.  We  suspend  our  faith,  and  apply  ourselves 
with  all  the  aids  that  reason,  learning,  industry 
supply  to  ascertain  the  source  of  our  error,  and  to 
discover  the  truth.  We  believe  that  Unitarians,  by 
doing  this,  have  done  much  toward  relieving  our  re- 
ligion from  articles  of  faith,  and  the  scriptures  from 
opinions  attributed  to  them,  which  they  never  taught, 
which  have  been  a  reproach  to  our  religion,  and  the 
occasion  of  its  being  rejected  by  many  ;  who  would 
gladly  have  received  all  that  it  has  taught,  had  it 
been  presented  to  them  unmixed  with  the  absurdi- 
ties and  impossibilities,  with  which  they  have  seen 
it  associated  in  popular  creeds. 

In  order  to  estimate  the  relative  tendency  of  the 
two  systems,  as  respects  benevolent  action,  whether 
in  relation  to  the  common  interests  of  life,  or  that 
highest  kind  of  it,  which  is  directed  to  the  spread  of 
the  Gospel  J  and  the  salvation  of  men,  we  have  only 
to  compare  together  the  views  which  have  been 
given  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  the  two  systems  ; 
])articu]arly  as  they  relate  to  the  character  and 
dispositions  of  the  Author  of  nature,  his  moral 
government,  and  the  moral  nature  of  man,  and  his 
condition,    as  a  state  of  trial  and  probation  for   an 


139 

endless  being. — To  this  comparison  I  confidently 
invite  you,  in  the  assurance  that  no  further  illus- 
tration is  necessary  ;  and  that  you  cannot  fail  to  be 
convinced,  that  no  opinions  on  these  subjects  can 
be  better  calculated,  than  those  which  we  maintain, 
to  purify  and  exalt  our  best  affections,  and  to 
strengthen  the  motive  to  every  kind  of  benevolent 
exertion. 

I  am  persuaded  too,  that  upon  a  fair  comparison 
Unitarians  will  not  be  found  in  fact  to  be  behind 
other  Christians  in  their  benevolent  exertions. 
Neither  in  Europe  nor  America  are  they  liable  to 
any  peculiar  reproach  for  the  want  of  activity  and 
engagedness  in  promoting  humane  and  benevolent 
designs.  In  accomplishing  all  the  great  purposes 
of  christian  charity,  as  relates  both  to  this  and 
another  life,  it  is  believed  they  have  taken  their  full 
share  of  interest,  and  have  contributed  their  full 
share  of  exertion  with  their  persons  and  their 
property. 

In  proportion  to  their  numbers,  no  denominatiou 
of  Christians  has  furnished  more  distinguished  ex- 
amples of  ardent  and  disinterested  zeal,  personal 
sacrifices,  and  active  exertion  in  the  cause  of  truth, 
for  the  advancement  of  pure  religion,  and  to  pro- 
mote humane  and  benevolent  objects.  None  have 
contributed  more  largely  to  some  of  the  most  valua- 
ble institutions,  by  which  the  present  period  is  dis- 
tinguished. They  have  taken  an  active  and  leading 
part  in  promoting  the  great  ends  of  the  Bible 
Society,  and  the  Peace  Society.  In  each  of  these 
they  have  united  together  with  Christians   of  all 


140 

Other  denominations.  Their  exertions  and  their 
contributions  to  the  purposes  of  christian  charity 
have  been  less  the  subject  of  public  notice,  than 
equal  and  similar  exertions  of  others,  for  reasons 
which  are  obvious.  They  have  not  been  exclusive. 
They  have  not  been  made  separately.  They  have 
usually  been  thrown  into  a  common  stock.  They 
have  had  no  desire  to  be  distinguished  from  other 
Christians, — have  been  willing  to  act  with  them, 
and  wherever  the  object  proposed,  and  the  means 
for  attaining  it  were  such,  as  they  could  approve, 
to  unite  with  others  in  promoting  it.  They  have 
done  what  every  one,  who  regards  the  great  inter- 
ests of  religion  more  than  personal  reputation,  or 
the  advancement  of  a  party,  ought  to  do.  They 
have  exercised  their  judgment  in  selecting  the 
objects,  to  which  they  should  lend  their  aid ;  not 
always  choosing  those,  which  would  excite  the 
admiration  of  the  world,  or  contribute  most  to 
give  consideration  or  power  to  a  sect,  or  serve 
to  distinguish  them  from  others.  They  have 
accordingly  been  less  engaged  than  some  other 
denominations  of  Christians,  in  projecting  and  sup- 
porting foreign  missions,  which,  though  the  most 
splendid  and  imposing,  they  have  thought  to  be  one 
of  the  least  useful  of  the  achievements  of  christian 
charity.  For  this  apparent  backwardness  and 
lukev^armness,  with  which  they  are  sometimes 
reproached,  reasons  may  be  assigned,  which  are  not 
inconsistent  with  their  taking  as  deep  an  interest 
in  the  cause  of  Christianity,  and  the  salvation  of 
their  fellow-men,   as  others ;  and   being  ready  to 


141 

contribute  as  nuich,  and  as  cheerfully  to  extend  the 
knowledge,  the  influences,  and  the  blessings  of  our 
holy  faith  to  all  lands  and  to  every  people. 

The  imaginary  cases,  which  Dr.  Woods  has 
allowed  himself  to  state,  (pp.  154,  155)  are  wholly 
gratuitous.  He  would  have  spared  himself  and  the 
reader,  had  he  reflected  for  a  moment,  that  a  Uni- 
tarian might  invert  the  picture  he  has  drawn,  and  it 
would  be  entitled  to  the  same  consideration  as  that, 
which  he  has  presented  ;  that  is,  to  none  at  all. 
Were  it  even  in  his  power,  instead  of  a  mere  suppo- 
sition, to  produce  an  example,  he  must  perceive, 
that  it  would  prove  nothing  to  the  purpose,  for 
which  it  was  alleged  ;  since  that  would  not  be  in- 
consistent with  an  opposite  example  at  the  same 
time.  Were  it  a  fact,  instead  of  a  mere  unag'mationf 
that  an  individual  Unitarian  by  becoming  orthodox 
had  become  more  zealous  and  engaged,  both  in  per- 
sonal religion  and  in  benevolent  exertions ;  and 
that  an  individual  Calvinist,  on  the  other  hand,  had 
lost  much  of  his  piety  and  zeal  in  becoming  a  Unita- 
rian ;  it  would  not  prove  that  others  might  not 
experience  an  equally  salutary  change  of  character 
in  passing  from  the  orthodox  to  the  unitarian  faith, 
— or  one  equally  unfavourable  by  passing  from  the 
unitarian  to  the  orthodox.  I  may  have  as  good 
reason  for  believing  that  the  one  event  would  take 
place,  as  Dr.  Woods  has  for  the  probability  of 
the  other.  And  our  opinions  are  each  alike  of  no 
value. 

I  have  observed  that  satisfactory  reasons  could 

be  assigned,  why  Unitarians  are  not  seen,  as  distin- 
18 


142 

guished  from  others  in   those  '^•remarkable  move- 
ments,*' which  in  Dr.  Woods'  opinion  '^  present  the 
only  prospect  we  have  of  the  salvation  of  the  world." 
(p.  153.)    Some  have  had  the   opinion,  in   common 
with  intelligent  and   pious  Christians  of  other  de- 
nominations, that  little  hope  was  to  be  entertained, 
of  any  important  benefit  from   missionary  exertions 
in  heathen  countries.    So  little  success  has  attended 
all  endeavours  in  modern  times  to  extend  the  bounds 
of  Christendom   by  missions  for  the  conversion  of 
barbarous   pagan   nations,    that    some    have    been 
ready  to  think,  that  no  hope  was  to  be  entertained 
from  human  exertion,  until  it  should  be   accompa- 
nied, as  it  was  in  the  apostolic  age,  with  some  visible 
supernatural  aid  ;  until  those,  who  are  sent  forth  to 
carry  the  Gospel  to  the  heathen,   should   have  the 
power  given    them  to   propose  its  doctrines  with 
the  same  authority,  and  accompanied  with  the  same 
miraculous  evidence,  as  it  was  when  presented  by 
its  primitive  teachers.     Nor  has  this  opinion  been 
confined  to  Unitarians. 

Others  again,  who  have  had  more  confidence  in 
the  efRcacy  of  human  exertions,  and  who  believe 
that  Christianity  will  finally  triumpli  universally 
through  the  instrumentality  of  ordinary  means; 
have  yet  not  been  satisfied  with  the  means  they 
have  seen  employed.  They  have  believed  that 
direct  endeavours  for  the  conversion  of  the  heathen 
to  Christianity  have  been  premature;  and  have 
been  wasted  by  being  ill-timed  and  misapplied. 
They  have  thought  that  no  permanent  or  extensive 
good  was  to  be  expected,  except  where  the  arts  and 


143 

some  of  the  liabits  of  civilized  life,  and  some  of  the 
human  literature  of  Christendom  have  been  first 
carried,  to  prepare  the  way  for  its  reception.  They 
have  thought  that  those,  to  whom  the  Gospel  is  sent, 
must  be  prepared  to  understand  it  and  to  feel  its 
value  by  some  previous  education ;  and  some  have 
been  disgusted,  no  doubt  unjustly,  by  thinking  that 
they  saw,  in  the  remarkable  movements  alluded  to 
above,  too  much  of  ostentation  and  worldly  motive ; 
too  much  that  seemed  like  a  call  upon  an  admiring 
world,  ^^  Come  and  see  my  zeal  for  the  LordP 

By  some  it  has  been  thought,  that  to  bring  men 
from  the  grossness  and  absurdities  of  paganism  to 
pure  Christianity,  the  progress  must  be  gradual. 
The  transition  is  too  great,  and  would  give  too 
violent  a  shock,  to  take  place  at  once.  They  must 
pass  to  it  through  several  intermediate  steps.  Light 
must  be  thrown  in  gradually,  as  they  are  able  to 
bear  it.  Christianity  is  more  likely  to  be  received, 
if  it  be  first  introduced  in  forms  mingled  with  con- 
siderable degrees  of  superstition  ;  with  pomp,  and 
form,  and  ceremony,  and  even  with  corruptions  of 
doctrine,  which  bring  it  nearer  to  the  faith  to  which 
they  have  been  accustomed.  Polytheists,  for  exam- 
ple, it  has  been  supposed,  may  be  more  easily 
reconciled  to  Christianity,  and  more  ready  to  em- 
brace it  in  that  form,  which  leaves  them  a  threefold 
God,  or  three  Gods,  (for  they  will  be  able  to  under- 
stand none  of  those  nice  distinctions,  which  exercise 
the  wits  of  learned  theologians  and  acute  meta- 
physical divines  on  this  subject,)  than  that,  which 
reduces  the  object  of  human  worship  to  a  perfect 
unity. 


144 

With  such  views  and  such  impressions,  they 
have  seen  their  duty,  so  far  as  respects  exertions  in 
the  Christian  cause,  lying  in  a  different  course  ;  not 
in  sending  Unitarian  missionaries  into  barbarous 
nations,  but  in  studies,  and  labours  at  home  to 
purify  the  Christian  doctrine,  and  restore  it  to  its 
primitive  state.  They  have  believed,  if  the  Unita- 
rian doctrine  is  to  be  sent  any  where  abroad,  it  is 
to  the  Jews,  and  the  followers  of  Mahomet,  among 
whom  all  attempts  to  introduce  Christianity  have 
been  defeated  by  the  corruptions,  with  which  it 
has  been  accompanied ;  and  where  better  success 
may  be  reasonably  expected,  when  it  shall  appear 
stripped  of  those  appendages,  which  constitute  their 
objection  to  it. 

Other  reasons  also  are  to  be  assigned  for  that 
appearance  of  apathy,  want  of  interest  and  want  of 
exertion,  with  which  Unitarians  are  sometimes 
charged.  As  has  been  said  before,  they  have  never 
been  forward  to  distinguish  themselves  as  a  sect 
from  the  rest  of  their  fellow  Christians.  They  have 
never  united  their  exertions  together  for  the  pur- 
pose of  establishing  a  separate  interest.  They 
have  felt  no  separate  interest.  They  have  been 
willing  to  remain,  as  long  as  they  were  allowed  to 
remain,  mingled  together  with  their  fellow  Chris- 
tians, undistinguished  from  the  general  mass, 
throwing  in  their  contributions  both  of  money  and 
of  personal  exertion  with  theirs.  They  have  thus 
contributed  to  swell  the  amount  of  charities  and 
exertions,  for  which  they  have  had  no  share  of 
the  credit. 


145 

To  this  course  of  conduct  they  have  been 
induced  in  part  by  the  love  of  peace,  a  desire  to 
escape  odium,  and  to  avoid  disturbing  the  public 
tranquillity  and  order.  But  neither  the  purity  of 
their  motives,  nor  the  peaceful  and  silent  course 
they  have  pursued,  was  sufficient  to  shield  them, 
from  reproach.  This  very  quiet  and  silence  were 
brought  against  them,  as  an  evidence  of  lukewarm- 
ness,  and  heartlessness,  and  indifference  to  the 
cause  of  religion ;  and  their  alleged  inactivity 
was  attributed  to  an  opinion,  that  Christianity 
was  of  little  value,  and  that  men  might  do  well 
without  it. 

They  have  accordingly  found,  that  the  reasons 
for  their  former  course  no  longer  continued ;  and- 
they  have  changed  that  course.  They  have  been 
convinced,  that  the  state  of  things  called  upon  them 
to  use  those  exertions  in  the  maintenance,  defence, 
explanation  and  propagation  of  their  opinions,  from 
which  only  a  regard  for  peace  had  hitherto  res- 
trained them  ;  since  the  same  peaceful  and  silent 
course  could  no  longer  shield  them  from  reproach, 
nor  prevent  the  mischiefs  that  they  wished  to  avert. 
And  now  what  is  the  consequence  of  this  change  of 
measures  ?  They  are  reproached  with  that  very 
activity  and  zeal,  with  those  very  exertions,  which 
but  a  short  time  since,  it  was  their  reproach  not  to 
make. 

These  exertions  are  accompanied  with  the  hap- 
piest effects.  Tliey  have  awakened  a  spirit  of 
inquiry,  which  will  go  on  and  increase.  They 
appear  not  yet,  and  it  may  be  long  before  it  will 


146 

be  proper  that  they  should  appear,  in  some  of  those 
particular  things,  in  which  they  are  reproached 
with  being  deficient.  They  have  much  to  do  at 
home,  before  it  will  be  in  their  power  advanta- 
geously to  the  Christian  cause  to  extend  their  ex- 
ertions abroad.  They  have  to  awaken  a  livelier 
interest  in  the  cause  of  Christianity  and  the  pro- 
gress of  rational  and  just  views  of  its  doctrines  in 
their  own  body  ;  to  excite  a  deeper  tone  of  religious 
feeling  in  that  part  of  the  Christian  community,  to 
which  they  have  access,  whether  from  the  press  or 
the  pulpit ;  to  engage  the  wealthy  to  cooperate  with 
them,  by  bringing  home  to  their  feelings,  the  great 
good  they  have  it  in  their  power  to  do,  and  to  their 
consciences  the  solemn  responsil)ility  connected 
with  every  talent,  and  every  opportunity  and  pow- 
er of  doing  good.  They  have  to  excite  literary 
men  to  give  more  of  their  studies  and  labours,  and 
more  of  their  zeal  to  the  promotion  of  so  great  and 
desirable  a  purpose.  They  have  to  induce  enlighten- 
ed and  liberal  men,  who  by  their  professions  or  public 
stations  have  an  opportunity  of  exciting  a  salutary 
influence  in  the  community,  to  a  more  open  and 
manly  avowal  of  their  opinions,  and  to  unite  with 
them  in  all  fair,  and  moderate,  and  temperate 
measures,  with  the  Christian  spirit,  yet  with  ardour 
and  lively  interest,  to  promote  and  extend  them. 
It  is  not  doubted  that  throughout  our  count^'y, 
a  very  large  proportion  of  those  men,  who  for  their 
talents,  and  learning,  and  virtues  have  the  most 
influence  in  the  community,  and  have  it  in  their 
power  to  do  the  most  toward  giving  a  right  direction 


147 

to  the  public  feeling  or  public  sentiment,  are  dis- 
satisfied with  the  Calvinistic  and  Trinitarian  form, 
in  which  they  have  had  religion  presented  to  them ; 
and  if  they  have  been  led  by  circumstances  to  free 
inquiry  on  the  subject,  are  Unitarians.  But  vari- 
ous causes  prevent  them  from  making  a  public  avow- 
al of  their  opinions.  Among  these,  not  the  least 
is,  usually,  an  unwillingness  to  encounter  opposition 
and  obloquy,  and  the  loss  of  confidence,  and  of  the 
power  of  being  useful.  It  is  among  the  encourag- 
ing prospects  of  the  present  time,  that  the  reasons 
for  reserve  are  ceasing  to  operate  with  all  the  force 
they  have  done  in  times  past,  and  that  the  reluc- 
tance to  an  undisguised  avowal  of  Unitarian  senti- 
ments is  in  a  great  degree  overcome. 

It  is  asked,  by  what  motives  Unitarians  are 
influenced  in  their  endeavours  to  disseminate  their 
peculiar  opinions.  The  answer  is  easy,  and  I  think 
such  as  to  justify  at  least  all  the  zeal  and  earnest- 
ness they  have  yet  discovered  in  the  defence  or  the 
publication  of  their  views  of  Christianity.  They 
are  earnest  and  active  then,  because  they  have  a 
firm  faith  in  the  truth  and  the  importance  of  their 
opinions,  and  that  it  is  their  duty  to  bear  their  tes- 
timony to  the  truth,  and  to  leave  no  proper  means 
untried,  to  cause  it  to  be  attended  to,  and  under- 
stood, and  respected.  And  they  are  fully  persuad- 
ed, that  the  course  they  are  pursuing  in  this  respect 
is  in  fact  attended  with  very  salutary  eff'ects.  One, 
to  which  they  attach  no  small  importance,  is  the 
well  known  fact,  that,  wherever  the  unitarian  doc- 
trine prevails,  and  the  rational  views  with  which  it 


148 

is  accompanied,  a  very  important  portion  of  society, 
the  most  elevated,  intelligent,  and  enlightened  be- 
come serious  and  practical  Christians,  who,  in 
catholic  countries,  or  where  Calvinism  prevails,  are 
oftener  unbelievers  and  sceptics,  and  treat  Chris- 
tianity with  neglect  at  least,  if  not  with  disrespect. 
The  reason  of  this  is  obvious.  Men  of  cultivat- 
ed minds  and  enlarged  views  are  often  so  engaged 
in  the  business,  and  engrossed  by  the  interests  and 
cares  of  the  world,  as  to  depend  for  their  views  of 
Christianity  wholly  on  what  they  hear  from  the 
pulpit,  and  what  they  find  in  the  popular  creeds 
and  catechisms,  which,  they  take  for  granted,  ex- 
hibit fairly  to  them  the  Christian  doctrine.  Find- 
ing the  system,  as  it  is  thus  presented  to  them,  such 
as  their  understanding  and  moral  feelings  will  not 
admit  of  their  receiving,  they  reject  Christianity 
without  further  examination  ;  not  thinking  them- 
selves bound  to  inquire  into  the  evidence  of  a  system 
of  faith,  which  carries  in  itself,  in  their  view, 
intrinsic  marks  of  incredibility.  When  to  persons 
•of  this  character  and  in  such  circumstances  unitarian 
views  of  the  christian  doctrine  are  afterward  pre- 
sented, their  attention  is  arrested  by  their  reasona- 
bleness, and  their  consistency  with  what  the  light  of 
nature  teaches  of  the  character  and  government  of 
God.  They  are  induced  to  examine  the  claims  of  a 
religion  to  their  faith,  which  is  presented  to  them  in  a 
form,  so  agreeable  to  the  reason  God  has  given  them, 
and  to  the  natural  notions  that  arise  from  what  they 
see  of  his  character  and  dispositions  in  the  government 
of  the  world  :  and  the  effect  of  examination  is  a  firm 


149 

conviction,  that  the  newviews,  in  which  Christianity 
has  been  presented  to  them,  are  the  result  of  a  fair 
and  just  interpretation  of  the  scriptures  in  which  it 
is  contained  ;  and  that  the  religion  itself  is  as  well 
supported  by  evidence,  as  it  is  worthy  of  the  faith, 
and  approbation,  and  affection  of  a  wise  and  en- 
lightened mind. 

The  time  has  been,  within  the  memory  of  men 
now  living,  when  in  that  class  of  society  now  alluded 
to,  the  most  elevated,  enlightened,  and  influential 
in  giving  the  tone  to  the  public  sentiment,  and  the 
direction  to  the  manners  and  practice  of  society, 
infidelity  and  contempt  for  religion  were  far  more 
prevalent  in  this  vicinity,  than  they  are  at  the 
present  day ;  and  at  that  time  the  religion  which 
issued  from  the  pulpit,  and  which  was  the  only 
faith  that  reached  them,  was  Trinitarian  and  Calvin- 
istic.  I  hazard  nothing.in  asserting,  that  in  pro- 
portion as  those  views  of  religion,  which  are  gener- 
ally adopted  by  Unitarians,  have  become  prevalent, 
infidelity  and  contempt  of  religion  have  become  less^ 
and  less  frequent ;  and  our  most  enlightened  men, 
with  scarcely  any  exception,  are  among  its  most 
efficient  friends  and  serious  and  practical  professors. 

I  have  now  said  all  that  I  meant  to  say  upon  the 
doctrine  of  Christianity,  as  held  by  Unitarians,  its 
comparison  with  the   Trinitarian  and   Calvinistic 
faith,  and  its  tendency  and  moral  influence.     I  have, 
endeavoured  to  express  myself  with  the  most  p^rliect^' 
freedom  and  plainness;  yet  with, the  decpniW  an<l , 
respect  due  to  the  solemn  and  interest j.rtgjsu3}ect.5 ' 
which   have  come  before  me,  to   the  author  of  the 
19  '       :    :'-'    '  ;     ■'     "'. 


150 

book  which  I  have  had  so  much  occasion  to  notice, 
and  to  those  fellow- christians,  who  may  dissent  from 
the  opinions  and  views  which  I  have  expressed. 

For  the  declaration  made  with  emphasis  by  Dr. 
Woods  at  the  close  of  his  book,  "  that  in  his  honest 
and  serious  apprehension,  the  Unitarian  system  is 
indeed  aiiother  Gospel,^^  I  was  not  wholly  prepared  ; 
though  it  is  one  which  we  have  before  been  accus- 
tomed to  hear  in  different  forms  from  other  sources, 
for  whieh  we  have  less  reason  to  feel  respect.  We 
are  consoled,  however,  with  the  thought,  that  an 
excommunication,  though  pronounced  ex  cathedra, 
carries  not  with  it  now  the  terror,  which  it  once  did. 
Christians  will  venture  to  judge  between  the  rival 
systems,  and  will  take  the  liberty  to  decide,  each 
one  for  himself,  whether  the  gospel,  as  it  is  held  by 
Unitarians,  or  as  it  is  held  by  Trinitarians  and 
Calvinists,  be  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 


ERRATUM. 

r.  47, 1.  3,  for  "  by  Christ,"  read  in  Christ. 


COLUMBIA   UNIVERSITY 

This  book  is  due  on  the  date  indicated  below,  or  at  the      i 
expiration  of  a  definite  period  after  the  date  of  borrowing, 
as  provided  by  the  rules  of  the  Library  or  by  special  ar- 
rangement with  the  Librarian  in  charge. 

DATE  BORROWED 

DATE  DUE 

DATE  BORROWED 

DATE  DUE 

JULl9»50 

MUV 

29W9r 

'^' 

■     ''      '\~ 

r  '"T      \ 

.^s& 

Cu'»   ■'- 

''^■D 

FEB 

[6  199  J 

m       \ 

C28'630)MS0 

I  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITV 

0026760444 


338.7 


h/22Z 


